>^-         ^ 


BL 

51 

.A226 

1890 

C.2 


Skelf- 


('i.1,na 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BL  51  .A226  1890  C.2 
Abbot,  Francis  Ellingwood, 

1836-1903. 
The  way  out  of  agnosticism 


*'^ 


yV\^ 


THE 

WAY   OUT   OF  ag:n^osticism 


OR   THE 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  FREE  RELIGION 


Bg  tJjE  Same  ^utf)or. 


SCIEN^TIFIC     THEISM. 

Third  Edition. 
12mo.    Cloth.    242  Pages.     Sent,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  $2.00  by 

LITTLE,   BROWN,  AND    COMPANY, 
254  Washington  Strket,  Boston,  Mass. 


Press  Notices  ivill  be  found  at  the  end  of  this  volume. 


THE 


WAY    OUT    OF   AGNOSTICISM 


OK    THE 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  FREE  RELIGION 


BY 

/ 

FRANCIS   ELLINGWOOD   ABBOT,  Ph.D. 

Late  Instructor  in  Philosophy  in  Harvard  UNivERsiir 


BOSTON 
LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND   COMPANY 

1890 


Copyright,  1889  and  1890, 
By  Francis  Ellingwood  Abbot. 


5Snibtrsitg  ^ress : 
John  Wilson  and  Son,  Cambridge. 


NOTE. 

The  following  papers  (with  the  exception  of  the  Introduction) 
are  based  on  notes  of  forty-one  lectures  delivered  in  1888,  in  the 
"  Advanced  Coui'se,  Philosophy  13,"  Harvard  University.  Origi- 
nally published  during  the  year  1889  as  a  series  of  contributions 
to  a  monthly  periodical  in  Boston,  they  are  now  addressed,  not  to 
those  who  are  impatient  of  serious  thought  or  incapable  of  follow- 
ing a  close  and  continuous  argument,  but  to  those  (and  their  name 
is  legion)  who,  though  able  and  willing  to  think,  have  been  dis- 
tressed or  dismayed  by  the  seeming  inability  of  theistic  writers  in 
this  age  to  meet  and  defeat  agnosticism  on  its  own  professed 
ground,  —  the  ground  of  science  and  philosophy.  By  a  wholly 
new  line  of  reasoning,  drawn  exclusively  from  those  soui'ces,  this 
book  aims  to  show  that,  in  order  to  refute  agnosticism  and  establish 
enlightened  theism,  nothing  is  now  necessary  but  to  philosophize 
that  very  scientific  method  which  agnosticism  barbarously  mis- 
understands and  misuses.  Of  the  success  of  the  perhaps  unwise 
attempt  to  show  this  in  so  small  a  compass,  the  educated  public 
must  be  the  judge.  But  it  may  be  well  to  quote  here  these  wise  and 
true  words  of  Arnold  Toynbee,  one  of  the  noblest  young  men  of  the 
century,  whose  early  death  was  a  calamity  to  England  and  to  the 
world :  — • 

"Had  liberal  theologians  in  England  combined  more  often  with 
their  undoubted  courage  and  warmth  definite  philosophic  views, 
religious  liberalism  would  not  now  be  condemned  as  offering  nothing 
more  than  a  mere  sentiment  of  vague  benevolence.  Earnest  and 
thoughtful  people  are  willing  to  encounter  the  difficulty  of  mastering 
some  unfamiliar  phrases  of  technical  language,  when  they  find  they 
are  in  possession  of  a  sharply  defined  intellectual  position  upon  which 
their  religious  faith  may  rest." 

F.  E.  A. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  Feb.  10,  1890. 


INTRODUCTION.* 

In  its  relation  to  religion,  the  century  now  drawing  to 
its  close  is  emphatically  the  Age  of  Agnosticism.  All  the 
leaders  of  its  characteristic  thought  have  more  or  less  con- 
sciously, more  or  less  completely,  broken  with  Christianity, 
—  that  is,  broken  with  that  venerable  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse for  which  the  Christian  theology  and  the  Qhristian 
church  have  definitely  stood  for  nearly  two  thousand  years. 
But  these  leaders  are  paralyzed  when  it  comes  to  construct- 
ive thought.  They  have  no  other  theory  of  the  universe  to 
propose ;  they  aim  at  none  ;  they  agree,  if  they  agree  on  any- 
thing, that  no  theory  of  the  universe  is  possible.  What  is 
known  as  the  "philosophy  of  evolution,"  certainly  so  far  as 
its  great  champions  and  expounders  are  concerned,  strictly 
limits  itself  to  a  mere  knowledge  of  "phenomena,"  and 
strictly  denies  all  possible  knowledge  of  ''"noumena";  it 
formulates  a  mode  of  happening,  a  uniformity  of  process,  a 
law  of  co-existence  and  sequence,  but  claims  to  demonstrate 
the  impossibility  of  comprehending  ultimate  causes,  or  of 
arriving  at  any  theory  of  the  universe  as  an  intelligible 
unity.  Whether  the  phenomenal  universe  is  the  product  of 
intelligence  or  of  unintelligence, —  whether  the  human  being 
is  a  creative  first  cause  or  a  mere  link  in  an  endless  and 
eternal  chain  of  effects,  and  whether  his  conscious  existence 
ceases  at  death,  or  continues  beyond  the  grave, —  all  these 
vital  questions,  fundamental  to  any  real  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse, it  declares  to  be  necessarily  and  absolutely  unanswer- 
able. God,  Freedom,  and  Immortality,  the  supreme  interests 
of  human  thought  and  human  life  alike, —  these,  to  the  evo- 


*  This  Introduction  appeared  in  The  New  Ideal  for  January,  1889,  under 
the  caption,  "Creative  Liberalism." 


viii  Introduction. 

hition-philosophy  in  its  present  form,  are  insoluble  problems, 
the  eternal  rock-barriers  of  the  ever-restless  ocean  of  human 
speculation.  Every  form  of  the  evolution-philosophy  which 
is  founded  on  "  the  Unknowable  "  is  founded  on  agnosticism, 
or  denial  of  the  possibility  of  any  comprehensive  theory  of 
the  universe ;  and  agnosticism  is  the  j)revalent  philosophy 
of  liberalism  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

This  statement  needs  no  proof,  for  it  simply  records  a 
fact  of  observation,  patent  to  every  onlooker.  A  single  sig- 
nificant illustration  of  it  is  enough. 

The  two  most  successful  novels  of  the  past  summer  hinge 
on  the  conflict  between  traditional  Christianity  and  modern 
liberalism.  In  "E-obert  Elsmere"  and  in  "John  Ward, 
Preacher,"  portraits  are  painted  of  the  modern  liberal,  as 
seen  by  keen-eyed  observers  ;  and  in  each  case  the  liberal  is 
an  agnostic. 

Says  Kobert  Elsmere,  only  a  few  days  before  his  death : 
*'  I  often  lie  here,  Elaxman,  wondering  at  the  way  in  which 
men  become  the  slaves  of  some  metaphysical  word — person- 
ality, or  intelligence,  or  what  not !  What  meaning  can  they 
have  as  applied  to  God  ?  Herbert  Spencer  is  quite  right. 
We  no  sooner  attempt  to  define  what  we  mean  by  a  Per- 
sonal God  than  we  lose  ourselves  in  labyrinths  of  language 
and  logic.  But  why  attempt  it  at  all  ?  I  like  that  French 
saying :  '  Quand  on  me  demande  ce  que  dest  que  Dieu,  je 
V ignore ;  quand  on  ne  vie  le  demande  pas,  je  le  sais  tres- 
bien  ! '  No,  we  cannot  realize  Him  in  words  —  we  can  only 
live  in  Him,  and  die  to  Him ! " 

Helen  Ward  expresses  no  less  clearly  the  same  bewilder- 
ment and  defeat  of  thought :  ''  But,  after  all,  this  question 
of  eternal  punishment  is  such  a  little  thing,  so  on  the  out- 
side of  the  great  puzzle  !  One  goes  in,  and  in  :  Why  is  sin, 
which  is  its  own  punishment,  in  the  world  at  all  ?  What 
does  it  all  mean,  anyhow  ?  Where  is  God,  and  why  does  He 
let  us  suffer  here,  with  no  certainty  of  a  life  hereafter  ?  Why 


Introduction. 


IX 


does  He  make  love  and  death  in  the  same  world  ?  Oh,  that 
is  so  cruel, —  love  and  death  together  !  Is  He,  at  all  ?  Those 
are  the  things,  it  seems  to  me,  one  has  to  think  about.  But 
why  do  I  go  over  it  all  ?  We  can't  get  away  from  it,  can 
we  ?  "  And  again  :  <'  To  some  of  us  God  is  only  another 
name  for  the  power  of  good, —  or,  one  might  as  well  say 
force,  and  that  is  blind  and  impersonal ;  there  is  nothing 
comforting  or  tender  in  the  thought  of  force.  How  do  you 
siippose  the  conviction  of  the  personality  of  God  is  reached  ?" 
And  once  again,  when,  after  the  death  of  her  beloved  hus- 
band, a  friend  tries  to  comfort  her  by  saying  —  "It  is  so 
much  happier  for  him  now ;  he  must  see  so  clearly ;  and 
the  old  grief  is  lost  in  joy,"- — -Helen  answered  wearily: 
"No,  you  must  not  say  those  things  to  me.  I  cannot  feel 
them.  I  am  glad  he  has  no  pain ;  in  an  eternal  sleep  there 
is  at  least  no  pain.  But  I  must  just  wait  my  life  out,  Gifford. 
I  cannot  hope ;  I  dare  not.  I  could  not  go  on  living,  if  I 
thought  he  were  living  somewhere,  and  needing  me.  No, 
it  is  ended.     I  have  had  my  life." 

The  deep  pathos  of  these  two  noble  works  of  fiction,  far 
truer  to  life  as  it  is  than  many  so-called  biographies,  lies  in 
the  remorseless  fidelity  with  which,  perhaps  unconsciously 
and  unintentionally,  they  expose  the  intellectual  beggar- 
liness  of  liberalism  in  its  present  unfledged  state.  Such 
dearth  of  great  ideas,  such  piteous  poverty  of  comprehen- 
sion, as  is  exhibited  in  the  mental  condition  of  these  two 
typical  liberals,  simply  shows  that  liberalism,  so  far  as  it 
claims  to  be  the  custodian  of  high  truth,  is  to-day  infinitely 
inferior  to  the  Christian  mythology  which  it  has  displaced. 
Periods  of  revolution  are  doubtless  necessary,  but  only  by 
way  of  transition  to  periods  of  higher  construction  ;  and,  if 
liberalism  could  by  any  possibility  fall  permanently  into  the 
arrested  development  of  agnosticism,  it  would  be  no  heir  of 
the  future.  Eobert  Elsmere  and  Helen  Ward,  lovely  and 
noble  as  personal  characters,  represent,  as  agnostic  thinkers, 


X 


Introduction. 


the  lowest  and  crudest,  because  the  least  intellectual,  type  of 
liberalism.  It  is  an  awful  tragedy  of  the  human  soul,  when 
its  holiest  affections  and  impulses  and  aspirations,  guided 
no  longer  by  the  ancient  superstitions  which,  in  whatever 
coarse  and  prickly  envelope,  contained  nevertheless  most 
precious  thoughts,  are  bereft  of  all  other  guidance,  gasp- 
ing for  life  in  the  exhausted  receiver  of  mere  vacuity  of 
thought. 

This  merely  negative  attitude  of  mind,  this  emptiness  of 
all  positive  ideas  respecting  the  supreme  problems  which 
man  is  set  to  solve,  is  indeed  the  present  characteristic  of 
liberalism,  but  only  because  liberalism  is  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  its  career.  Agnosticism,  in  itself  considered,  is  noth- 
ing but  intellectual  bewilderment,  confusion  of  thought,  a 
mere  temporary  defeat  and  despair  of  human  reason  in  the 
presence  of  questions  which  it  has  not  yet  learned  how  to 
answer.  When  liberalism  once  comes  to  understand  itself, 
—  when  it  once  discovers  how  to  go  to  work,  how  to  handle 
these  questions,  how  to  synthesize  the  facts  and  laws  which 
modern  science  has  established  beyond  reasonable  doubt, — 
then  it  will  see  its  way  clear  to  a  theory  of  the  universe 
founded  upon  modern  knowledge,  and  will  no  longer  fancy 
its  mission  to  mankind  discharged  by  merely  overthrowing 
a  theory  of  the  universe  founded  upon  ancient  superstition. 
The  era  of  constructive  or  creative  liberalism  is  fated  to 
come ;  and  what  it  will  create  is  necessarily  a  new  theory  of 
the  universe,  without  which  no  religious  movement  can  live. 
The  real  moral  of  "Eobert  Elsmere"  and  "John  Ward, 
Preacher,"  has  been  as  yet  drawn  by  no  one ;  the  real  lesson 
of  the  helpless  and  hopeless  liberalism  they  too  justly  de- 
pict is  deeper  than  any  of  the  critics  have  as  yet  perceived. 
Briefly  pvit,  it  is  this :  men  must  either  learn  to  think  more 
profoundhj,  or  else  unlearn  to  feel. 

That  is  the  dilemma  to  which  agnosticism  reduces  the 
human  spirit.      If   all   knowledge  of   God,  Freedom,  and 


Introduction.  xi 

Immortality  is  impossible  to  man,  the  only  escape  from  in- 
tolerable anguish,  in  the  constant  presence  of  pain  and  death, 
must  lie  in  a  stoical  suppression  of  the  power  to  feel  —  in  a 
desperate  resolve  to  think  and  feel  no  more,  but  to  extinguish 
all  deep  thought  and  all  high  feeling  through  frantic  self- 
absorption  in  the  soulless  details  of  life.  Yet  what  an  im- 
possible escape  !  In  every  noble  nature,  deep  thought  and 
high  feeling  have  become  a  necessity ;  the  only  possible  es- 
cape for  such  lies  in  deeper  thought  and  higher  feeling. 
Here  is  revealed  the  supreme  duty  of  modern  liberalism  to 
press  resolutely  forward,  away  from  agnosticism,  to  a  pos- 
itive, scientific,  all-comprehensive  theory  of  the  universe. 
It  is  infinitely  false  that  such  a  theory  is  unattainable.  The 
agnosticism  which  professes  to  prove  its  unattainability  is 
nothing  but  one  of  two  things  —  either  intellectual  imbecil- 
ity or  intellectual  cowardice.  The  one  unpardonable  sin  of 
the  intellect  is  to  despair  of  itself.  Liberalism  has  always 
stood  for  freedom  —  freedom  from  dogma  and  freedom  from 
ecclesiastical  control.  Well  and  good  :  let  it  always  stand 
for  that !  But  now  it  must  stand  for  truth  as  well,  and  for 
the  power  of  human  reason  to  attain  the  truth.  To  liberal- 
ism alone  can  poor  humanity,  losing  day  by  day  its  hold  upon 
the  Christian  theory  of  the  imiverse,  look  for  a  new  theory 
that  may  guide  its  thought  and  life.  The  paramount  duty 
of  construction  and  creation  to  which  liberalism  is  now  called 
is  that  of  working  out  such  a  theory,  bravely,  hopefully,  pa- 
tiently, reverently,  devotedly  ;  and  The  New  Ideal  will 
justify  itself  to  the  world,  if  it  proves  itself  to  be  that  New 
Thought  which  is  the  world's  deepest  and  most  imperative 
need. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  FREE  RELIGION. 


I. 

It  is  with  no  little  hesitation  and  reluctance  that,  yield- 
ing to  the  editor's  urgency,  I  undertake  the  difficult  task  of 
attempting  to  write  out,  in  as  simple  and  untechnical  a 
manner  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  permits,  an  outline  of 
the  theory  of  the  universe  which,  if  I  mistake  not,  lies  la- 
tent and  implicit  in  the  scientific  method,  and  which  must 
become  explicit,  whenever  this  method  shall  be  faithfully 
applied  to  the  great  problems  of  philosophy.  The  reasons 
why  I  should  not  undertake  the  task  are  numerous  and 
formidable.  First  and  foremost,  perhaps,  is  the  fact  that,  al- 
though the  ground-plan  of  this  theory  is  already  thorough- 
ly matured,  the  literary  execution  of  it  is  as  yet  scarcely 
even  begun,  and  from  want  of  opportunity  may  never  be 
completed ;  and  it  seems  almost  absurd  to  present  the 
abridgment  of  a  work  which  does  not  yet  exist  to  be 
abridged.  Next,  the  impossibility  of  doing  justice  to  any 
philosophy  by  discarding  its  appropriate  diction,  suppress- 
ing its  necessary  subtilty  of  distinction,  and  curtailing  its 
indispensable  reasoning,  renders  such  an  attempt  almost  a 
crime  against  philosophic  truth  itself.  Further,  the  fit 
place  of  publication  would  naturally  be  some  journal  spe- 
cially devoted  to  philosophy,  rather  than  a  journal  like 
The  New  Ideal,  which  does  not  address  itself  in  partic- 
ular to  a  philosophic  audience.  Again,  the  agnosticism  so 
widely  diffused  among  liberals  at  the  present  day  makes 
me  gravely  doubt  the  utility  of  any  such  publication ;  the 
thought  is  suited  to  no  self-satisfied  ignorance,  but  to  the 


2  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Relig-ion. 

determined,  keen,  hopeful  spirit  of  investigation,  to  the 
spirit  which  counts  present  failure  as  only  a  stepping-stone 
to  future  success,  to  the  spirit  Avhich  is  fixed,  resolute,  in- 
domitable in  the  effort  to  wrest  knowledge  from  Nature, 
and  which  repudiates  the  imbecile  philosophy  that  founds 
itself  upon  "  the  Unknowable "  and  pretends  to  set  up 
''  limits  of  human  knowledge "  in  a  universe  everywhere 
penetrable  by  patient  and  persistent  reason ;  in  short,  it  is 
not  to  those  who  believe  a  theory  of  the  universe  impos- 
sible, but  to  those  who  know  that  a  sound  theory  of  it  is 
inevitable,  whenever  science  ripens  into  philosophy,  that  I 
can  look  with  any  expectation  of  intelligent  sympathy. 
Lastly,  I  am  painfully  aware  that  to  state  my  results  brief- 
ly and  without  due  argumentation  must  subject  me,  how- 
ever unanswerable  and  conclusive  the  necessarily  omitted 
reasons  for  them  may  be,  to  groundless  charges  of  assump- 
tion,  presumption,  dogmatism.  These  considerations  (with 
others  needless  to  mention)  are  quite  sufficient  to  render 
the  proposed  undertaking  anything  but  a  source  of  pleas- 
urable anticipation  to  myself. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  reasons  on  the  other  side  which 
have  led  me  to  consent  to  make  the  attempt,  whatever  the 
consequences  may  prove  to  be.  Chief  among  them  is  the 
wish  to  render  some  little  help  to  the  brave  and  devoted 
editor  of  The  New  Ideal,  in  whatever  way  he  himself 
judges  he  most  wants  help,  and  to  further  as  far  as  2:)0ssible 
his  bold  enterprise  of  giving  once  more  to  liberalism  a 
journal  of  high  constructive  aims  and  earnest  helpfulness 
to  man.  Moreover,  there  is  in  my  own  mind  a  lurking 
hope  that  even  now,  scattered  here  and  there,  may  be  found 
spirits  already  eager  to  welcome  the  higher  thought  of  the 
future,  already  prepared  to  demand  an  interpretation  of  the 
fact  of  Evolution  Avhich  shall  be  freed  from  the  humiliat- 
ing and  entangling  alliance  with  phenomenism,  agnosticism, 
or  know-nothingism,  and  already  ripe  for  the  reception  of  a 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  3 

thoroughly  free  philosophy,  at  once  grounded  in  science 
and  culminating  in  the  loftiest  moral  and  religious  ideals. 
To  the  young  I  look  for  such  spirits  as  these,  for  in  the 
young  is  the  hope  of  the  world.  There  is  no  possible  re- 
demption for  mankind  from  the  political,  commercial,  in- 
dustrial, and  social  immoralities  of  the  present,  except  in 
the  speedy  development  of  ideals  which  shall  fire  the  souls 
of  the  rising  generation  to  give  battle  to  this  hydra-headed 
monster  of  corruption,  and  fight  it  down  in  the  power  of 
the  higher  life ;  and  the  power  of  the  higher  life  is  the  power 
of  the  higher  thought.  Here,  in  this  crying  need  of  a  higher 
thought  than  agnosticism  has  ever  given  or  can  ever  give, 
lies  the  necessity  of  a  new,  constructive,  non-agnostic  lib- 
eralism ;  and  I  cannot  resist  the  call  to  do  my  little  part  in 
answering  the  deepest  need  of  my  own  time. 

So  much  for  the  reasons  why  I  should  gladly,  yet  must 
not,  refuse  the  task  now  laid  upon  me. 

In  justice,  however,  to  all  concerned,  let  it  be  distinctly 
understood  at  the  very  outset  that  the  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse now  to  be  advanced,  as  the  intellectual  foundation 
of  a  New  Ideal  of  Liberalism,  claims  no  other  support 
than  its  own  inherent  and  evident  truth.  It  does  not  claim 
to  be  the  philosophy  of  The  New  Ideal  or  of  its  editor  j 
no  one  is  authorized  to  declare  this  except  the  editor  him- 
self, and  he  must  not  be  held  responsible  for  anything  said 
in  this  series  of  papers,  unless  he  himself  sees  fit  to  ap- 
prove it  explicitly  in  words  of  his  own.  It  would  be  un- 
fair and  ungenerous  to  him,  if,  merely  because  he  has  urged 
me  to  write  the  series,  I  should  allow  it  to  be  imagined 
that  I  am  in  any  sense  his  authorized  representative  or 
spokesman;  and  it  would  be  equally  unjust  to  myself,  to 
the  depth  and  strength  of  my  own  convictions,  if  I  should 
allow  it  to  be  imagined  that  this  theory  of  the  universe 
needs  any  other  corroboration  than  manifest  congruity  with 
the  facts  of  the  universe  itself. 


4  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

Furthermore,  in  entitling  tliese  papers  "  The  Philosophy 
of  Free  Religion,"  it  must  not  be  understood  that  I  claim 
for  them  the  sanction  of  the  Free  Religious  Association,  or 
of  any  of  its  officers  or  members.  These  must  speak  for 
themselves ;  I  do  not  speak  for  them  at  all.  But  I  do 
claim  the  right  to  call  by  that  name  the  philosophy  which, 
in  my  own  mind,  had  begun  to  shape  itself,  and  which,  in 
the  Christian  Examiner  of  September,  1865,  and  March, 
1866,  had  begun  to  utter  itself,  before  the  Free  Religious 
Association  was  organized, —  the  philosophy  which,  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  now,  though  less  matured  in  form, 
impelled  me  in  1867  to  join  in  the  founding  of  that  Asso- 
ciation,—  the  philosophy  which  impelled  me  in  1869  to  be- 
come the  editorial  founder  of  "  The  Index,  A  Weekly  Paper 
Devoted  to  Free  Religion,"  in  entire  independence  of  the 
Free  Religious  Association, —  the  philosophy  which  im- 
pelled me  in  1880  to  procure  the  donation  of  The  Index  to 
the  Free  Religious  Association  by  the  Index  Association, — 
and  the  philosophy  which  impelled  me  in  1886,  in  the  last 
issue  of  The  Index  itself,  to  protest  against  the  transfer  of 
its  "good-will"  to  a  new  journal  which  straightway  justi- 
fied the  protest  by  devoting  itself  avowedly  to  "Mo- 
nism and  Agnosticism  ...  as  positive  and  negative 
aspects  of  the  one  and  only  rational  scientific  philosophy." 
The  title  of  this  series  of  articles  seems  to  me  appropriate 
because  they  aim  to  develop  the  philosophy  which  must 
(consciously  or  unconsciously)  underlie  any  and  every  free 
religious  movement  or  institution :  namely,  the  philosophy 
which  results  from  the  faithful  application  of  the  scientific 
method  to  the  universe  as  a  whole.  They  aim  to  sketch 
this  necessary  philosophy,  as  a  theory  of  the  universe  logic- 
ally involved  in  the  scientific  method  itself,  but  not  yet 
historically  evolved  from  it  in  the  intellectual  conscious- 
ness of  the  world ;  they  cannot,  therefore,  claim  to  repre- 
sent the  present  convictions  of  any  one  except  the  writer, 


Tlie  Philosopluj  of  Free  Religion.  5 

but  they  do  claim  to  indicate  tlie  necessary  philosophical  goal 
of  the  great  movement  of  modern  scientific  thought.  And 
by  this  claim  they  must  stand  or  fall. 


What  remains  of  this  first  article  of  the  series  must  be 
devoted  to  a  concise  statement  of  the  beginning  and  the 
end  of  the  road  now  opening  before  us,  in  order  that  the 
reader  may  know  exactly  what  to  expect. 

I.  The  universal  results  of  the  special  sciences,  including 
the  method  commoii  to  them  all,  are  the  only  possible  data  of 
philosophy  or  universal  science. 

This  principle,  which  alone  can  give  to  universal  human 
reason  a  firm  foothold  in  reality  as  universal  human  expe- 
rience, is  the  necessary  beginning-point  of  all  philosophy 
which  deserves  to  be  called  scientific.  It  means  that  phi- 
losophy cannot  begin  until  the  innumerable  individuals  of 
the  human  race  have  accumulated  a  common  stock,  great  or 
small,  of  universal  knowledge  which  has  been  proved, 
tested,  or  verified  by  their  universal  experience,  and  from 
which  all  the  errors  of  individuals  have  been  eliminated. 
It  means  that  this  common  stock  of  verified  knowledge  of 
the  universe,  gained  through  long  ages  of  experience  and 
clarified  by  science,  is  the  only  solid  ground  of  reality 
upon  which  philosophy  can  build ;  and  that  the  only  legit- 
imate business  of  philosophy  is  to  organize,  systemize,  and 
make  the  most  of  this  universally  verified  knowledge  — to 
combine  the  fragmentary  and  disconnected  data  of  the 
special  sciences  in  such  a  way  as  to  unite  them  in  one  har- 
monious, comprehensive,  and  trustworthy  theory  of  the 
universe  as  a  whole. 

II.  The  universe  is  known  as  at  once  infinite  machine, 
infinite  organism,  and  infinite  person  —  as  mechatiical  in  its 
apparent  form  and  action,  organic  in  its  essential  constitution, 


6  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Relirjion. 

and  personal  in  its  innermost  being :  it  is  the  eternallij  self- 
evolving  and  self-involving  unity  of  the  Absolute  Meal  and 
the  Absolute  Ideal  in  God. 

This  principle,  which  alone  can  give  to  universal  human 
experience  an  intelligible  unity  m  universal  human  reason, 
is  the  necessary  end  or  outcome  of  all  philosophy  which  de- 
serves to  be  called  scientific.  It  means  that  philosophy 
cannot  end  in  the  Infinite  Impersonal  without  stultifying 
reason  and  experience  at  once, —  that  the  Infinite  Imper- 
sonal is  below  even  the  Finite  Personal,  and  immeasurably 
below  the  Infinite  All-Person, —  that  the  Infinite  Super- 
personal  (or  unknown  and  transcendent  God)  must  include 
the  Infinite  All-Person  (or  known  and  immanent  God),  pre- 
cisely as  this  includes  the  infinite  organism  and  the  infinite 
machine, —  that  the  Infinite  Impersonal  can  only  be  the 
false  dream  of  an  Infinite  Sub-personal, —  and  that  to  iden- 
tify a  universe  containing  finite  personalities  with  an  Infi- 
nite Sub-personal  is  to  wreck  all  possibility  of  conceiving 
Being  as  One,  by  making  its  oneness  a  self-contradictory 
thought.  In  other  words.  Infinite  Impersonal  Being  is  an 
impossible  conception  which  never  has  been,  and  never  can 
be,  thought  by  any  one ;  to  think  Infinite  Being,  however,  is 
the  necessity  of  all  philosophy,  and  it  can  only  be  thought 
as  at  once  infinitely  mechanical,  infinitely  organic,  and  in- 
finitely personal. 

III.  The  universe  itself,  as  eternally  self-evolving  and 
self-involvifig  unity  of  the  Absolute  Real  and  the  Absolute 
Ideal  in  God,  is  the  Ethical  Realization  of  the  Infinite  Di- 
vine Ideal,  which  reflects  itself  in  the  Finite  Human 
Ideal  as  the  sun  reflects  itself  in  the  deio-drop ;  and  the 
splendor  of  its  reflection  is  piroportioned  to  the  intelligent, 
free,  loyal,  and  loving  obedience  of  the  human  soul  to  it,  as 
at  once  the  supreme  laiv  of  Human  Nature  and  the  sujyreme 
known  law  of  Universal  Nature. 


The  Pliilosophij  of  Free  Religion.  T 

This  principle  is  the  only  one  which  can  give  universal 
and  necessary  objective  validity  to  the  Moral  Law,  kindle 
such  an  "  enthusiasm  of  humanity  "  as  shall  illumine  both 
the  inner  and  the  outer  life  with  divine  radiance,  or  furnish 
an  adequate  and  indestructible  foundation  either  to  Ethics 
or  to  Religion ;  and  it  can  only  be  derived  from  the  theory 
of  the  universe  which  has  been  indicated  above.  These 
papers  aim  to  trace  the  main  lines  of  rational  connection 
between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  this  Philosophy  of 
Free  Religion,  and  thereby  help  to  lay  solid  intellectual 
foundations  for  a  new  and  true  Ideal  of  Humanity  —  in  the 
conviction  that  no  ideal  can  ever  become  practicable,  unless 
it  first  becomes  comprehensible. 


8  The  Fhllosoiihy  of  Free  Religion. 


II. 

§  1.  The  foundation  or  beginning-point  of  all  genuinely 
scientific  philosophy,  as  already  intimated,  is  the  principle 
that  the  taiiversal  results  of  the  special  sciences,  including 
the  method  common  to  them  all,  are  the  only  2>osslble  data  of 
jjhilosophg  as  universal  science. 

In  other  words,  philosophy  cannot  begin  by  throwing 
away  the  vast  treasure  of  universal  human  knowledge, 
gathered  by  the  cooperative  and  long-continued  experience 
of  mankind,  in  order  to  construct  it  afresh  from  the  sole 
standpoint  of  individual  consciousness.  Such  a  reconstruc- 
tion is  impossible  without  using,  in  the  very  process  itself, 
that  knowledge  which  the  individual  has  previously  learned 
from  others,  from  mankind ;  it  is,  therefore,  a  manifest,  un- 
deniable, and  philosophically  fatal  "begging  of  the  ques- 
tion." For  this  reason  (not  to  mention  many  others  for 
which  here  there  is  no  room),  the  famous  formula  of  Des- 
cartes, "  I  think,  therefore  I  am,"  recognized  by  all  compe- 
tent writers  as  the  foundation  of  so-called  modern  j^hiloso- 
phy,  represents  a  beginning-point  which  does  not  really 
begin ;  the  very  words  in  which  it  is  expressed,  and  with- 
out which  it  could  not  be  clearly  thought  at  all,  whether 
French,  Latin,  or  English,  Avere  learned  from  others,  and 
transmit  knowledge  to  the  individual  which  he  tries  in  vain 
to  sweep  from  his  own  mind,  in  order  to  make  a  fresh  be- 
ginning from  his  immediate  self-consciousness  and  philoso- 
phize without  the  necessity  of  acknowledging  indebtedness 
to  his  fellow-men.  The  common  experience  of  mankind 
has  accumulated  an  immense  fund  of  common  knowledge, 
which  enters  more  or  less  into  the  education  of  every  indi- 
vidual ;  he  spends  years  in  learning  this  before  he  can  pos- 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  9 

sibly  begin  to  philosophize  on  his  own  account,  and  is  never 
able  to  separate  it  wholly  from  what  he  acquires  through 
his  independent  activity.  "  Common  sense  "  designates  the 
crude  mass  of  this  common  knowledge,  mixed  with  much 
error;  "science,"  in  the  form  of  numerous  special  sciences 
which  sift  out  the  error,  establish  the  truth,  and  make  fresh 
discoveries,  each  in  the  special  direction  of  its  own  limited 
line  of  investigation,  designates  the  purified  mass  of  this 
common  knowledge,  freed  from  the  crudities  of  "common 
sense,"  but  left  still  in  a  disjointed  and  unorganized  con- 
dition; "  philosophy,"  just  so  far  as  it  deserves  its  name, 
designates  that  more  profound  and  comprehensive  thinking 
which  combines  the  fragmentary  data  of  all  the  special 
sciences,  blends  them  into  one  rational  whole,  and  consti- 
tutes the  organized  mass  of  this  common  knowledge,  freed 
not  only  from  the  crudities  of  "common  sense,"  but  also 
from  the  fragmentariness,  half-views,  and  inevitable  lim- 
itations of  "science"  itself.  In  other  words,  "common 
sense  "  studies  the  universe,  but  only  with  reference  to  the 
immediate  needs  of  practical  life ;  "science"  studies  it  with 
reference  to  the  needs  of  exact  knowledge,  but  only  in 
arbitrarily  limited  fields,  provinces,  or  parts ;  "  philosophy  " 
studies  it  in  its  wholeness,  totality,  or  unity,  not  only  with 
reference  to  the  needs  of  exact  knowledge  (universal 
science),  but  also  with  reference  to  those  of  practical  life 
(ethics).  Hence  no  individual  can  possibly  limit  the  foun- 
dation of  philosophy  to  the  mere  data  of  his  own  im- 
mediate consciousness,  since  these  are  themselves  founded 
on  the  data  of  " common  sense "  and  "science"  alike,  and 
presuppose  that  common  knowledge  which  he  has  previous- 
ly more  or  less  learned  from  the  human  race  in  general. 
There  is  no  help  for  it :  philosophy  must  begin  by  taking 
the  existence  and  reality  of  Universal  Human  Knowl- 
edge as  its  own  given  fact,  datum,  material,  subject-matter, 
foundation, —  or  it  can  never  begin  at  all. 


10  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

§  2.  But  where  is  this  universal  human  knowledge  stored  ? 
Where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  Where  does  it  exist  as  a  con- 
crete reality  ?  For,  if  philosophy  founds  upon  a  mere  ab- 
straction, it  will  itself  be  a  mere  abstraction  in  the  end. 

Universal  human  knowledge  exists  in  Universal  Lit- 
erature, using  the  term  in  a  sense  so  broad  as  to  include 
every  permanent  record  or  register  of  human  thought.  It 
is  only  through  covimunication  (that  is,  the  "making  com- 
mon ")  that  individual  knowledge  enters  into,  or  adds  to, 
the  great  stock  of  common  knowledge,  and  thereby  univer- 
salizes itself  in  a  true  sense.  Uncommunicated  individual 
knowledge  perishes  with  the  individual;  only  commun- 
icated knowledge  can  become  general  or  universal.  Not  all 
literature  is  knowledge ;  all  completely  universalized  knowl- 
edge, however,  derives  its  universality  from  its  incorpora- 
tion into  literature,  and  exists  in  literature  alone.  For  lit- 
erature, in  its  essence,  is  not  the  mere  material  instruments 
of  communication,  but  rather  the  meaning  which  was  orig- 
inally put  into  these  things  by  living  intelligences,  and 
which,  if  it  had  not  been  put  into  them,  could  never  be  ex- 
tracted from  them  by  other  living  intelligences.  It  is  not 
true  that  the  reader  gets  from  a  book  only  what  he  himself 
freely  constructs  in  the  reading  by  the  activity  of  his  own 
mind.  Not  a  little  trash  of  this  sort  has  been  said  and 
printed ;  but  whoever  receives  a  letter  from  a  distant  friend 
may  easily  know,  if  he  will,  that  he  receives  from  it  inform- 
ation or  knowledge  which  he  himself  could  not  possibly 
have  originated  or  constructed  in  his  own  mind.  Univer- 
sal literature  is,  so  to  speak,  the  whole  mass  of  letters  or 
extant  correspondence  which  has  been  bequeathed  by  the 
past  to  the  present;  it  constitutes  now  the  capitalized 
knowledge  of  the  human  race,  and  grows  in  bulk  from  age 
to  age  by  the  additions  of  each  new  generation.  It  consists, 
not  in  parchment  or  paper  as  such,  but  in  the  essential 
meaning,  the  objective  thought,  the  new  grouping  of  old 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  11 

symbols  so  as  to  make  them  express  new  ideas,  which  orig- 
inated in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  and  now  reaches  the  mind 
of  the  reader  through  these  outward  signs  alone.  The  me- 
dium is  material,  but  the  message  is  intellectual.  This  is 
the  true  ''  telepathy  "  (not  a  whit  less  wonderful  because  it 
is  a  fact  of  commonest  experience),  by  which  human  con- 
sciousness commtmicates  with  human  consciousness  through 
that  which  is  not  human  consciousness.  The  meaning  com- 
municated must  pass  through  some  material  medium,  vehi- 
cle, or  bearer,  or  it  could  never  be  communicated  at  all ;  and 
the  bearer  of  universal  human  knowledge,  that  is,  the  total 
message  which  man  in  the  past  has  sent  to  man  in  the  pres- 
ent, is  universal  literature. 

§  3.  Now  universal  literature,  being  that  by  which  alone 
human  knowledge  can  completely  universalize  itself,  de- 
pends upon  Universal  Language,  as  a  world-wide  fact. 
The  plurality  of  languages  in  no  wise  obscures  this  fact. 
There  is  a  universal  grammar  which  finds  in  every  language 
universal  parts  of  speech,  universal  modes  of  combining 
them  in  judgments  or  universal  propositions,  and  universal 
elements  of  the  latter  in  Universal  Terms.  Every  word, 
in  every  language,  no  matter  what  may  be  its  grammatical 
function,  is  essentially  and  necessarily  a  universal  term ; 
that  is,  it  must  be  of  universal  application,  or  it  would  be 
utterly  useless  as  a  word. 

§  4.  Thus  we  find  that  the  universal  human  knowledge 
which  supplies  to  philosophy  its  only  possible  datum,  sub- 
ject-matter, or  foundation,  is  all  contained  in  universal  lit- 
erature, or,  in  the  last  analysis,  in  universal  terms.  The 
results  of  science  must  be  permanently  stored  in  this  form, 
and  can  only  be  found  in  this  form.  Museums,  laboratories, 
observatories,  and  all  other  machinery  of  science,  are  only 
so  many  feeders  of  literature,  and  exist  for  the  sake  of  li- 
braries, as  so  many  treasure-houses  of  human  discovery, 
study,  thought;    and  all  the  libraries  in  the  world,  con- 


12  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

sidered  in  their  essence,  are  only  a  vast  mass  of  universal 
terms.  Hence  philosophy  cannot  take  the  first  step  towards 
comprehension  of  the  results  of  science,  or  of  the  method 
which  has  produced  them,  without  first  comprehending  what 
universal  terms  really  are ;  and  the  actual  underpinning  of 
every  possible  philosophy,  whether  the  fact  is  admitted  or 
not,  consists  in  its  consciously  or  unconsciously  adopted 
doctrine  of  universal  terms  —  in  its  Theory  of  Ukivek- 
SALS.  So  much  penetration  as  it  shows  in  its  Theory  of 
Universals,  so  much,  and  no  more,  will  it  show  in  its  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scientific  Method,  and  this  will  exactly 
measure  its  worth  to  mankind  in  all  time  to  come.  In  truth, 
the  Scientific  Method  involves  the  Scientific  Theory  of 
Universals,  and  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Universals  involves 
the  Scientific  Method;  and  henceforth  philosophy  has  no 
legitimate  business  whatever  except  to  interpret  more  pro- 
foundly, develop  more  highly,  and  apply  more  searchingly, 
rigorously,  and  universally,  that  perfect  method  of  science 
by  which  man  has  mastered  all  he  really  knows  of  the  uni- 
verse he  inhabits.  The  first  great  task  of  philosophy,  then, 
is  to  lay  deep  and  solid  foundations  for  the  expansion  and 
ideal  perfection  of  human  knowledge  in  a  bold,  new,  and 
true  Theory  of  Universals.  For  so-called  modern  philos- 
ophy rests  complacently  in  a  Theory  of  Universals  which 
is  thoroughly  mediaeval  or  antiquated,  and  shows  itself 
daily  more  and  more  powerless  to  construct  a  theory  of  the 
universe  tenable  in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge.  There 
is  no  room  here  for  any  criticism  of  the  past,  or  even  of 
any  adequate  exposition  of  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Univer- 
sals itself ;  but  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  compact  state- 
ment which  shall  give  at  least  a  glimpse  of  its  three  chief 
aspects. 

§  5.  The  first  form  of  the  Universal  is  the  universal  term 
or  Word.  A  few  primitive  words,  radicals,  or  roots,  at  first 
used   indiscriminately,  gradually   developed   into   distinct 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  13 

parts  of  speech,  and  through  phonetic  modification,  addition 
of  prefixes  or  suffixes,  composition,  or  other  modes  of  inter- 
nal or  external  change,  gave  rise  at  last  to  the  numberless 
words  of  existing  languages,  the  relations  and  affiliations  of 
which  are  studied  by  comparative  philology.  Every  word 
has  its  own  genealogy,  reaching  far  back  into  pre-historic 
ages ;  it  lives  a  universal  life  quite  independent  of  the  in- 
dividuals who  successively  use  it,  and  constitutes  a  per- 
manent organic  product  of  a  permanent  organic  community 
of  speaking  beings.  Its  universal  life  lies  in  its  universal 
use  by  the  community,  to  express  some  constant,  or  imper- 
ceptibly changing,  universal  meaning. 

§  6.  The  second  form  of  the  Universal  is  the  universal 
meaning,  conception,  or  Concept.  Just  as  all  speaking  is 
only  a  combination  of  words  into  sentences,  so  all  thinking 
is  only  a  combination  of  concepts  into  judgments  or  propo- 
sitions. The  concept  is  a  permanently  organized  and  grow- 
ing thought,  entering  into  countless  judgments  formed  by 
the  individual  mind,  yet  always  retaining  substantially  the 
same  organic  form.  This  permanent  organic  constitution 
of  the  concept,  quite  independent  of  the  individual  minds 
which  successively  form  and  use  it,  is  the  most  significant 
fact  about  it ;  for  the  permanent  and  independent  constitu- 
tion of  concepts  alone  explains  the  permanence  and  inde- 
pendence of  words,  as  bearers  of  common  concepts  of  the 
race,  and  demonstrates  an  ultimate  origin  of  the  concept 
which  is  independent  of  any  and  every  individual  as  such. 
Every  concept  lives  a  universal  life  in  the  individual  mind, 
appearing  and  re-appearing  as  a  fixed  or  constant  element 
in  conscious  thinking ;  its  universal  life  lies  in  its  univer- 
sal use  by  the  individual  mind,  as  the  essential  meaning  of 
its  corresponding  word ;  and  this  essential  meaning  is  neces- 
sarily determined  by  the  nature  of  the  what-is-meant. 

§  7.  The  third  form  of  the  Universal  is  the  universal 
what-is-meant:   that  is,  the  universal  classes  or  kinds  of 


14  The  Philosojjhy  of  Free  Religion. 

things,  tlie  universal  genera  and  species  under  which  all 
known  existences  are  discovered  by  science,  or,  in  one  word, 
the  Genus.  Here  we  come  to  the  very  bottom  of  all  philo- 
sophical analysis.  Science  claims  to  know  real  existences, 
to  declare  their  real  classes  or  kinds,  and,  at  least  to  some 
extent,  to  explain  their  real  mutual  relations,  interactions, 
and  affiliations.  The  total  results  of  all  the  special  sciences 
may  be  summed  up  in  two  words  :  classification  and  genesis. 
Indeed,  the  one  word  classification  suffices,  for  genesis 
means  only  the  derivation  of  class  from  class,  or  kind  from 
kind.  Nothing  is  known  by  itself  alone  ;  it  is  known  only 
through  its  kind.  The  essential  constitution  of  every  genus  is 
that  of  viany  things  in  one  hind,  one  hind  in  many  things: 
the  unity  and  the  multiplicity  are  known  inseparably  to- 
gether. Hence  the  genus  is  in  no  sense  an  abstraction,  but 
the  concrete  totality  of  many  realities  in  one  reality ;  and 
this  essentially  organic  constitution  of  the  genus  is  the  uni- 
versal luhat-is-meant  of  the  concept,  just  as  the  concept  is 
the  universal  meaning  of  the  word.  Science  itself  may  be 
defined  as  Knowledge  of  the  Genus  :  that  is,  knowledge 
of  the  universe,  as  the  highest  kind  which  includes  all  other 
kinds. 

§  8.  Thus  the  genus  is  the  universal  kind ;  the  concept 
is  the  universal  thought  of  the  universal  kind ;  the  word  is 
the  universal  expression  of  the  universal  thought  of  the 
universal  kind.  There  are  here  three  distinct  grades,  or 
ascending  orders,  of  universality :  objective  universality  in 
the  genus,  subjective  universality  in  the  concept,  and  ob- 
jective-subjective universality  in  the  word.  To  borrow  the 
terms  of  mathematics,  the  genus  is  a  universal  of  the  first 
power,  the  concept  a  universal  of  the  second  power,  and  the 
word  a  universal  of  the  third  power;  and,  just  as  the  cube 
and  the  square  of  any  quantity  presuppose  the  first  power, 
so  the  word  and  the  concept  presupj^ose  the  genus.  The 
word  speaks  the  concept,  and  the  concept  thinks  the  genus ; 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  15 

at  the  bottom  of  all,  conditioning  the  very  possibility  of 
concept  and  word,  lies  the  genus,  as  the  only  possible  unit 
of  known  existence.  If  science  is  not  the  knowledge  of 
objectively  real  genera  or  kinds,  then  there  is  no  real 
knowledge,  and  a  philosophy  of  the  universe  is  impossible. 
But,  if  science  is  indeed  such  knowledge,  then  the  Scientific 
Theory  of  Universals  (here  scarcely  more  than  hinted  at)  is 
the  Atomic  Theory  of  Philosophy  ;  and  the  Genus,  the  Con- 
cept, and  the  Word  are  the  Ultimate  Molecules  of 
Universal  Human  Knowledge. 


16  The  Fhilosophy  of  Free  Religion. 


III. 

§  9.  The  importance  of  the  Theory  of  Universals  in  the 
past,  present  and  future  clevelojoment  of  philosojohic  thouglit 
cannot  be  overstated.  Every  philosophy  has  grown  out  of 
some  form  of  tliis  tlieory,  consciously  adopted  or  unconscious- 
ly inherited,  as  its  very  life-germ;  and  every  philosophy 
must  follow  out  the  line  of  development  which  its  own 
peculiar  form  of  the  theory  marks  out  for  it  beforehand. 
The  character  of  its  Theory  of  Universals  moulds,  controls, 
and  predetermines  the  character  of  its  Theory  of  Knowledge 
and  its  Theory  of  Being ;  and  it  is  the  union  or  fusion  of 
these  three  theories  in  one  comprehensive  whole  which 
constitutes  a  philosophy.  Ignoring,  therefore,  all  minor 
distinctions,  it  is  necessary  at  least  to  glance  at  three  great 
and  fundamentally  different  forms  of  the  Theory  of  Uni- 
versals, which  for  convenience  may  be  styled  the  Greek, 
the  German,  and  the  American. 

§  10.  The  Greek  theory  recognizes  the  Universal  in 
its  threefold  reality  as  the  Genus,  the  Concept,  and  the 
Word,  although  without  sufficiently  distinguishing  these 
one  from  another.  It  teaches  that  the  Individual  Thing  is 
alone  real,  as  the  unit  of  existence  and  of  knowledge  alike ; 
but  it  also  teaches  that  the  Universal,  as  sum  of  all  the 
real  characteristics  or  marks  which  are  common  to  all  things 
of  one  kind,  exists  whole  and  entire  in  each  individual  thing 
of  that  kind,  and  alone  constitutes  its  intelligible  reality  as 
a  fact  in  Nature.  This  is  at  least  to  conceive  the  Genus  as 
depending  on  man  neither  for  its  existence  nor  for  its  in- 
telligibility,—  as  being  the  real  intelligible  essence  of  the 
individual  thing  in  itself,  and,  as  svich,  an  ultimate  origin 
of  the  Concept  and  the  Word.     Hence  this  undeveloped 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  17 

Greek  theory,  teaching  the  Reality  of  the  Universal  in  the 
Individual  Thing,  has  been  for  centuries  fittingly  denom- 
inated Realism. 

§  11.  The  German  theory  recognizes  the  Universal  as 
the  Concept  and  the  Word,  but  denies  it  altogether  as  the 
Genus,  —  denies  it,  that*  is,  as  a  reality  in  a  real  ISTature 
known  by  Man,  yet  independent  of  him.  It  teaches  that 
the  Individual  Thing  in  Nature,  even  if  it  exists,  cannot  be 
known  either  in  itself  or  in  any  of  its  real  relations,  internal 
or  external.  It  teaches  that  the  Universal  is  absolutely 
nothing  but  the  work  of  human  reason,  has  no  real  existence 
except  as  the  Concept  and  the  Word,  and,  as  such,  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  individual  things  in  themselves,  which  can- 
not possibly  be  known  to  exist.  It  teaches  that  the  Con- 
cept and  the  Word  have  no  ultimate  origin  but  Man,  and 
that  the  notion  of  real  intelligible  genera  in  Nature,  existing 
independently  of  Man,  is  a  monstrous  fiction  of  mere  un- 
tutored imagination  or  "common  sense."  Hence  the  Ger- 
man theory,  teaching  the  Mere  Ideality  of  the  Universal  in 
the  Concept  and  the  Word,  completely  extinguishes,  merges, 
or  absorbs  the  Genus  in  the  Concept  or  Idea,  and  has  long 
been  fittingly  denominated  Conceptualism  or  Idealism. 

In  this  German  theory  of  Universals  lies  the  deep,  secret, 
and  generally  unsuspected  source  of  all  modern  Agnosticism, 
a  result  which  was  uncritically  accepted,  ready-made,  by 
Spencer  and  Huxley  from  Hamilton  and  Mansel,  borrowed 
by  Hamilton  and  Mansel  from  Kant  and  the  post-Kantian 
Idealists,  and  originally  developed  by  Kant  out  of  Hume 
and  other  adherents  of  Scholastic  Nominalism. 

§  12.  The  American  or  Scientific  Theory  of  Universals, 
like  the  Greek  theory,  recognizes  the  Universal  in  its  three- 
fold reality,  but  in  a  much  fuller,  higher,  and  profounder 
sense.  The  Word  is  the  Universal  of  Speech  ;  the  Con- 
cept is  the  Universal  of  Thought;  the  Genus  is  the 
Universal  of  Being.     The  Word  speaks  the  Concept,  and 


18  Tlte  Philosojihy  of  Free  Religion. 

the  Concept  thinks  the  Genus ;  the  content  or  meaning  of 
the  Word  is  identical  with  the  constitution  of  the  Concept, 
and  the  constitution  of  the  Concept  (provided  this  be  veriti- 
able  or  scientifically  true)  is  identical,  so  far  as  it  goes,  with 
the  constitution  of  the  Genus.  The  Genus  itself  is  not  a 
mere  sum  of  characteristics  or  marks  common  to  all  things 
of  one  kind,  and  therefore  real  in  a  lower  sense  than  the 
things  themselves;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  tlie  self-related 
organic  wliole  of  onany  real  things  in  one  real  kind,  and 
therefore  precisely  as  real  or  concrete  as  they.  So  defined, 
the  Genus,  or  Universal  of  Being,  and  not  the  Individual 
Thing  as  such,  is  alone  real.  It  alone  is  the  real  unit  of 
all  known  existence,  and  therefore  constitutes  an  indispen- 
sable co-factor  with  the  understanding  in  originating  the 
Concept  and  the  Word;  while  the  individual  thing  can 
neither  exist  nor  be  known  out  of  necessary  relation  to  its 
kind,  but  can  exist  and  be  known  only  in,  with,  and  through 
its  kind,  which,  again,  can  exist  and  be  known  only  in,  with, 
and  through  a  higher  kind.  What  is  known  through  the 
Concept  and  the  Word  is  never  the  independent,  isolated, 
or  unrelated  thing,  nor  yet  the  common  essence  of  many  un- 
related things  as  a  mere  abstraction,  but  always  the  concrete 
kind  of  many  interrelated  things  as  one  self-related  reality. 
Hence  it  is  not  true,  as  the  Greek  theory  teaches,  that  the 
Universal  exists  whole  and  entire  in  each  individual  of  the 
same  kind ;  on  the  contrary,  it  exists  only  in  all  the  individ- 
uals of  that  kind,  as  necessarily  united  in  the  Genus  or 
Universal  of  Being.  Neither  is  it  true,  as  the  German  theory 
teaches,  that  the  Universal  has  no  real  or  intelligible  exist- 
ence in  things  in  themselves,  that  is,  in  Nature  as  a  reality 
independent  of  Man ;  for  this  is  to  deny  the  very  possibility 
of  science,  as  verified  knowledge  of  such  real  Nature. 
Hence  the  American  theory,  teaching  the  Reality  of  the 
Universal  in  the  Concrete  Kind  or  Genus,  as  the  Sole  Object 
of  the  Scientific  Concept  and  Sole  Meaning  of  the  Scientific 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  19 

Word,  and  thereby  preserving  all  the  truth,  while  correcting 
the  errors,  of  both  Greek  and  German  theories,  is  fittingly 
denominated  Sciextific  Realism. 

§  13.  These  three  fundamental  forms  of  the  Theory  of 
Universals,  therefore,  may  be  shortly  contrasted  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

*  I.  The  Greek  theory  teaches  that  the  Indiv.idual  Thing- 
in-itself  is  the  ultimate  reality,  but  that  the  Universal 
is  also  real,  in  a  lower  sense,  as  the  known  essence  of  the 
Individual  Thing-in-itself. 

II.  The  German  theory  denies  that  the  Individual 
Thing-in-itself  is  known  at  all,  and  teaches  that  the  Uni- 
versal is  real  only  in  the  Concept  and  the  Word. 

III.  The  American  theory  teaches  that  the  Universal 
is  equally  real  in  the  Word,  the  Concept,  and  the  Genus ; 
and  that  the  Individual  Thing  and  the  Universal  Kind  are 
known,  each  in  and  ivith  and  through  the  other,  in  the 
Genus-in-itself.  The  Word,  the  Concept,  and  the  Genus 
are  the  ultimate  molecules  of  universal  human  knowledge ; 
and  universal  human  knowledge  itself,  in  its  purified 
form  as  science,  is  all  reducible  in  the  last  analysis  to 
Knowledge  of  the  Genus, — that  is,  to  knowledge  of  the 
innumerable  genera,  classes,  or  kinds  of  existence  which 
together  constitute  the  Universe  or  Highest  Kind  (summum 
genus). 

Thus  each  of  the  three  theories  determines  in  a  different 
way  the  Object  of  Knowledge,  and  thereby  predetermines 
a  different  Theory  of  Knowledge  and  Theory  of  Being. 
To  the  Greek  theory,  the  sole  object  of  knowledge  is  tlce 
Universal  in  the  Individiial  Thh\g.  To  the  German  theory, 
the  sole  object  of  knowledge  is  the  Universal  in  the  Con- 
cept or  Idea.  To  the  American  theory,  the  sole  object  of 
knowledge  is  the  Universal  Kind  and  the  Individual  Thing 
as  necessarihj  correlated  in  the  Real  Genus-in-itself. 

§  14.     For  all  present  purposes,  it  must  suffice  to  exhibit, 


20  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Beligio 


n. 


Avithoiit  criticism  or  argument,  these  three  theories  side 
by  side,  and  leave  the  thoughtful  reader  to  be  arguer  or 
critic  for  himself.  The  American  or  Scientific  Theory  of 
Universals  underlies  and  supports  the  whole  fabric  of  modern 
science.  Science  presents  itself  as  exact  and  verified  knowl- 
edge of  genera,  classes,  or  kinds  of  real  existence,  at  all 
times  observable  and  verifiable  in  the  Universe  as  the  su- 
preme Genus.  This  knowledge  embraces  a  vast  body  of 
scientific  concepts,  expressed  in  scientific  words ;  and  the 
truth  of  each  concept  depends  absolutely  on  the  identity  of 
its  constitution,  so  far  as  it  goes,  with  that  of  the  genus 
which  is  its  correlate  or  object. 

§  15.  But  the  identity  of  constitution  between  a  sub- 
jective concept  and  an  objective  genus  requires  that  there 
should  be  something  in  common  between  thoughts  and 
things  —  something  which  may  exist  indifferently  in  either. 
Such  a  common  term  is  found  in  the  Inherent  System  of 
Relations  or  Immanent  Relational  Constitution;  for 
relations  may  subsist  indifferently  between  things  or  be- 
tween thoughts,  and  therefore  be  the  same  in  both.  For 
instance,  the  relation  or  ratio  between  the  circumference 
and  diameter  of  a  circle  chalked  on  a  blackboard  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  the  relation  or  ratio  between  the  circum- 
ference and  diameter  of  a  circle  conceived  in  imagination  ; 
both  relations  inhere  necessarily  in  the  constitution  of  the 
circle  as  a  circle,  wherever  found,  and  are  necessarily  iden- 
tical. In  other  words,  equal  ratios  are  one  and  the  same 
ratio.  Aristotle  recognized  the  truth  of  this  princijile  un- 
equivocally two  thousand  years  ago,  when  he  said  that,  in 
such  cases,  "equality  is  unity."  If  this  principle  is  true, 
then  the  immanent  relational  constitution  of  a  concept  may 
be  strictly  and  absolutely  identical,  so  far  as  it  goes,  with 
the  immanent  relational  constitution  of  a  genus. 

§  16.     The    Scientific   Theory  of  Universals,  therefore, 
which  science  presupposes  in  every  statement  of  cosmical 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  21 

fact  or  cosmical  law,  necessarily  involves  the  great,  pro- 
found, and  all-embracing  principle  of  the  Objectivity  of 
Relations  :  namely,  the  principle  that  relations  are  no  less 
real,  discoverable,  verifiable,  and  intelligible  in  the  objective 
world  than  they  are  in  subjective  thought.  The  real  object 
of  every  scientific  concept  is  a  self -related  genus  in  Nature ; 
and  the  possibility  of  observing  and  verifying  it  is  the  ab- 
solute condition  of  the  possibility  of  science.  The  whole 
business  of  science  is  to  observe,  verify,  and  understand 
real  genera  in  Nature,  • —  that  is,  to  discover  them ;  it  does 
not  attempt  the  impossible  task  of  proving  the  possibility 
of  its  own  discovery,  since  every  such  proof  is  a  manifest 
begging  of  the  question.  The  only  philosophy,  therefore, 
which  either  does  or  can  harmonize  itself  with  science  is 
that  which  defends  the  discoverability  of  real  genera  in 
Nature,  or  (what  is  the  same  thing  precisely)  recognizes 
objective  generic  relations  as  the  intelligible  essence  of  a  real 
environment  not  dependent  on  man  either  for  its  existence  or 
for  its  intelligibility.  Such  a  philosophy  is  that  which  founds 
upon  Scientific  Eealism,  as  opposed  to  Philosophical  Ideal- 
ism; and  no  other  can  justly  lay  claim  to  the  epithet 
"modern." 

§  17.  No  philosophy,  it  is  triie,  can  demonstrate  by  pure 
reasoning  that  the  Genus  exists,  since  all  reasoning,  how- 
ever pure,  assumes  the  existence  of  the  Genus.  But  science 
has  already  demonstrated  its  existence  in  the  only  possible 
way,  not  by  pure  reasoning,  but  by  observation  and  verifi- 
cation. If  observation  and  verification  cannot  demonstrate 
the  real  existence  of  the  Genus,  philosophy  itself,  in  any 
sane  sense  of  the  word,  is  annihilated;  for  philosophy  has 
nothing  to  work  with  except  concepts,  and,  since  concepts 
can  think  nothing  whatever  but  genera,  the  doubt  or  denial 
of  genera  is  the  destruction  of  all  concepts  themselves. 
The  legitimate  work  of  philosophy  is  to  take  from  science 
the  concepts  it  has  already  acquired  by  scientific  observation 


22  The  Philosojjhij  of  Free  Religion. 

and  verification,  to  combine  them  in  new  and  higher  concepts 
through  philosophic  hypothesis,  and  to  confirm  philosophic 
hypothesis  by  philosophic  verification,  —  in  a  word,  to  dis- 
cover still  larger  genera  than  are  presented  in  the  limited 
fields  of  investigation  of  the  special  sciences,  and  thereby 
to  increase  knowledge  of  the  whole  real  vmiverse.  Philoso- 
phy, in  truth,  is  only  the  completion  or  higher  evolution  of 
science  itself,  and  can  never  attain  to  any  higher  hind  of 
certitude  than  that  to  which  science  has  already  attained. 
This  recognition  of  the  results  of  science  as  the  foundation 
of  philosophy  is  not  to  "beg  the  question,"  "take  the  uni- 
verse for  granted,"  or  "build  on  mere  baseless  assumption"; 
for  the  existence  of  the  Genus  has  been  long  ago  demon- 
strated by  science  in  the  only  possible  way,  to  wit,  by 
observation  and  verification.  The  sole  "  postulate  "  of  phi- 
losophy is  the  Truth  of  Science  —  which  is  disputable  by 
no  educated  man ;  and,  at  bottom,  the  truth  of  science  is 
the  truth  of  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Universals. 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  23 


IV. 

§  18.  It  lias  been  thus  far  shown  that  the  real  object  of 
knowledge  is  not,  as  the  Greek  Theory  of  Universals  teaches, 
the  "  tode  ti "  or  Individual  Objective  Thing-in-itself  ; 
nor  yet,  as  the  German  Theory  teaches,  the  "Vorstellung" 
or  Universal  Subjective  Concept-in-itself  ;  but  rather, 
as  the  American  or  Scientific  Theorv  teaches,  the  Univer- 
SAL  Objective  Genus-in-itself.  That  is  to  say,  the  real 
object  of  knowledge  is  not  the  concept  at  all  (though  this, 
too,  may  become  a  real  object  of  knowledge),  but  that  which 
is  really  known  by  means  of  the  concept :  namely,  the  Real 
Universal  Kind  of  Heal  Individual  Things,  inter- 
nally so  self-related  as  to  constitute  one  essential  whole  out 
of  many  essential  parts,  and  rendered  intelligible  through 
this  real  internal  self-relation. 

§  19.  Against  this  determination  of  the  object  of  knowl- 
edge may  be  arrayed  the  current  notions  of  the  ''  relativity 
of  knowledge."  This  doctrine,  a  truism  or  a  falsity  accord- 
ing as  it  is  conceived,  is  too  often  made  to  take  account  only 
of  the  cognitive  relation  between  the  object  and  the  subject, 
ignoring  altogether  the  internal  self-relatedness  of  the  ob- 
ject in  itself  —  which  is  the  main  part  of  the  business.  The 
argument  commonly  founded  on  it  is  that,  since  the  object 
can  only  be  known  in  relation  to  the  subject,  and  since  man's 
knowing-faculty  is  necessarily  limited  and  imperfect,  there- 
fore man  can  know  nothing  of  the  object  as  it  is  in  itself 
This  conclusion  is  far  too  large  for  the  premises.  From 
these  it  only  follows  that  man's  knowledge  of  the  object  is 
limited  and  imperfect  —  which  is  true ;  it  does  not  follow 
that  man  knows  nothing  of  the  object  as  it  is  in  itself  — 
which  is  false.     The  above  conclusion  makes  two  enormous 


24  The  Philosoplxy  of  Free  Religion. 

assumptions :  that  the  object  as  known  must  of  necessity- 
be  totally  different  from  the  object  as  it  is  in  itself,  and  that 
the  object  as  it  is  in  itself  cannot  be  known  at  all,  unless  it 
is  known  wholly.  Neither  of  these  assumptions  has  any 
foundation  in  reason  or  in  fact.  Just  so  far  as  man  discovers 
the  real  internal  self-relatedness  of  the  object,  just  so  far  he 
knows  it  as  it  is  in  itself;  for  to  know  it  "  in  itself"  can 
only  mean  to  know  it  in  its  internal  relations.  Science, 
which  is  his  verified  knowledge  both  of  external  and  inter- 
nal relations  of  the  object,  is  at  once  the  measure  and  the 
proof  of  his  knowledge  of  it  as  it  is  in  itself. 

Eationally  interpreted,  the  doctrine  of  the  '<  relativity  of 
knowledge"  means  merely  that  man  can  know  the  object 
so  far  only  as  he  has  the  capacity  to  know  it  —  which  is 
surely  a  very  innocent  proposition ;  but  to  interpret  it  as 
meaning  that  man  cannot  at  all  know  the  object  as  it  is  in 
itself  is  to  commit  the  absurdity  of  denying  the  very  possi- 
bility of  human  knowledge.  For  "not  to  know  the  object 
as  it  is  in  itself  "  is  either  (1)  to  know  it  as  it  is  not  in  itself, 
which  would  be  absolute  error,  or  else  (2)  not  to  know  it  at 
all,  which  would  be  ahsohite  ignorance.  To  one  or  the  other 
of  these  all  human  knowledge  is  reduced  by  the  common 
interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  "  relativity  of  knowl- 
edge."    The  world  needs  a  wiser  doctrine. 

§  20.  So  important  to  a  truly  scientific  theory  of  the 
universe  is  thorough  comprehension  of  the  Scientific  Theory 
of  Universals,  and,  in  particular,  of  the  principle  of  the  In- 
telligible Heality  of  the  Genus-in-itself,  that  a  single 
clear  and  simple  illustration  of  this  principle  will  be  no 
waste  of  space.  Let  us  take  the  "family"  as  an  easily 
conceived  instance  of  the  real  genus  in  itself. 

In  modern  civilized  communities,  the  political  unit  is  the 
individual ;  but  the  social  unit,  as  distinguished  from  the 
political  unit,  is  the  family,  since  society  as  such  consists 
only  of  complete  and  incomplete  families.     The  married 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  25 

individual  is  a  member  in  each  of  two  complete  families  — 
that  from  which  he  sprang  and  that  which  he  himself  founds. 
The  unmarried  individual  is  an  actual  member  of  the  family 
from  which  he  sprang,  and  also  a  possible  founder  and 
member  of  a  new  family  of  his  own ;  hence  he  must  be  re- 
garded as  existing  partly  in  a  complete,  and  partly  in  an 
incomplete  family. 

Every  complete  family  as  such  is  essentially  and  neces- 
sarily composed  of  several  individual  members  —  father, 
mother,  and  one  or  more  children.  The  father  is  related 
to  the  mother  as  husband,  and  the  mother  to  the  father  as 
wife  ;  their  reciprocal  relation  is  marriage.  The  father  and 
mother  are  both  related  to  the  children  as  parents,  and  the 
children  to  the  father  and  mother  as  offspring ;  their  recip- 
rocal relation  is  parentage,  on  the  one  side,  and  filiation,  on 
the  other.  The  children  are  related  to  each  other  as  brothers 
and  sisters :  their  relation  is  that  of  brotherhood  or  sister- 
hood. Father,  mother,  and  children,  although  separate  in- 
dividuals, are  constituted  a  real  family  by  these  interrela- 
tions of  marriage,  parentage,  filiation,  brotherhood,  and 
sisterhood ;  these  family  relations  themselves,  in  their  total- 
ity, make  up  the  family  constitution,  and  are  precisely  as 
real  as  the  individuals  related,  inhering  in  the  family  as 
such  and  as  a  whole,  and  subsisting  neither  in  any  one  in- 
dividual member  nor  in  any  outside  observer.  If  there  is 
to  be  either  a  real  father,  a  real  mother,  or  a  real  child,  then 
there  must  be  a  real  family  of  all  three ;  there  can  be  no 
father  without  a  mother  and  a  child,  no  mother  without  a 
father  and  a  child,  no  child  without  a  father  and  a  mother. 
Nay,  more :  no  individual  as  such  can  exist  except  as  a 
member  of  some  family  precisely  as  real  as  himself;  the 
reality  of  his  family  is  the  absolute  condition  of  his  own 
reality,  and,  vice  versa,  the  reality  of  several  individuals  is 
the  absolute  condition  of  the  reality  of  the  family.  All 
individuals  compose  the  genus  family.     All  families  com- 


26  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

pose  the  genus  society.  All  societies  compose  the  genus 
mankind.  All  individuals  =  all  families  =  all  societies  = 
all  mankind. 

In  this  union  and  interrelation  of  many  in  one  and  one 
in  many,  in  this  immanent  relational  constitution  by  which 
many  individuals  exist  and  are  indissolubly  united  in  one 
kind,  lies  the  very  essence  of  the  family  as  such ;  it  is  this 
system  of  inherent  relations,  precisely  as  real  as  the  in- 
dividuals related,  and  wholly  independent  of  any  outside 
observer,  which  constitutes  the  intelligible  and  essential 
reality  of  the  family  as  a  genus  in  itself.  Every  family 
must  be  relationally  constituted  in  order  either  to  he  a  family 
or  to  he  known  as  one ;  every  genus  must  be  relationally 
constituted  in  order  either  to  he  a  genus  or  to  he  known  as 
one.  Immanent  in  the  very  nature  of  being,  this  principle 
of  the  objectivity  or  reality  of  generic  relations  is  the 
absolute  condition  of  the  possibility  of  a  Wohld-Ordek  ; 
and,  immanent  in  the  very  nature  of  knowledge,  it  is  no 
less  the  absolute  condition  of  the  possibility  of  a  World- 
Science. 

§  21.  Now  in  order  to  escape  from  the  dense  fog  of  error 
which,  generated  by  the  doctrine  of  the  exclusive  subjec- 
tivity of  relations,  has  settled  heavily  down  over  so-called 
modern  philosophy  under  the  malign  influence  of  the 
German  Theory  of  Universals,  let  us  imagine  an  outside 
observer,  as  knowing  subject,  set  in  actual  relation  to  a  par- 
ticular family,  as  object  known. 

I.  First  of  all,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  observer  and  the 
family  are,  numerically  considered,  two  distinct  and  independ- 
ent realities.  So  far  as  they  are  now  related  in  the  mere 
act  of  knowledge,  one  is  the  subject  and  the  other  is  the 
object  of  this  act;  to  this  extent  they  are  reciprocally  de- 
pendent, —  that  is,  the  present  act  of  knowledge  is  condi- 
tioned upon  their  being  brought  into  present  relationship. 
But,  so  far  as  they  exist  in  themselves,  neither  subject  nor 


The  Philosopliy  of  Free  Religion.  21 

object  is  at  all  dependent  upon  the  other ;  the  observer  is 
intelligent  in  himself,  independently  of  the  family,  and  the 
family  is  intelligible  in  itself,  independently  of  the  observer. 
The  present  relationship  of  knowledge  is  necessary  neither 
to  the  intelligence  of  the  subject  nor  to  the  intelligibility 
of  the  object,  nor  yet  to  the  real  existence  of  either. 

II.  Next,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  ivhat  the  subject  knoics  of 
the  object,  in  the  present  relationship,  is  identical  with  the 
concept  which  results  from  that  relationship.  If  the  ob- 
server's knowledge  is  real  (that  is,  if  it  is  neither  error  nor 
ignorance  mistaken  for  knowledge),  then  his  concept  of  the 
family  reproduces  subjectively  and  accurately  the  objective 
relational  constitution  of  the  family.  What  the  observer 
knows  is,  not  his  own  concept,  but  the  family  itself ;  the 
concept  is  simply  his  knowledge  of  it.  Otherwise,  the 
family  would  not  be  the  object  at  all  —  which  it  must  be  in 
the  case  supposed.  As  self-conscious,  the  observer  doubtless 
knows  his  own  knowledge,  too ;  but  his  knowledge  of  the 
family,  if  real,  is  primarily  knowledge  of  the  family  itself, 
and  only  secondarily  of  the  concept  of  the  family. 

III.  Further,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  degree,  quantity, 
and  quality  of  the  observer's  knowledge  of  the  family,  in 
the  case  supposed,  depend  on  tivo  conditions :  (1)  on  the 
fulness  and  accuracy  of  his  previous  knowledge  of  the  real 
genus  "  family  "  in  general,  and  (2)  on  the  fulness  and  ac- 
curacy of  his  observation  of  this  family  in  particular.  If 
the  observer  were  only  a  child,  he  would  know  little  of  the 
real  family  constitution  in  general,  and  would  necessarily 
form  a  very  vague  and  inadequate  concept  of  this  particular 
family ;  and  so,  likewise,  if  he  were  a  chance  visitor  from 
some  planet  where  babies  grow  on  trees  or  fall  in  raindrops. 
Only  he  who  already  possesses  profound  knowledge  of  a  real 
kind  will  quickly  and  thoroughly  comprehend  a  new  case  of 
that  kind,  and  then  only  if  he  keenly  and  comprehensively 
observes  it.     The  adequacy  of  a  concept  to  its  object  must 


28  The  Philosojyhij  of  Free  Religion. 

always  depend  on  previous  thorough  understanding  of  the 
genus  to  which  the  object  belongs,  and  of  the  lower  and 
higher  genera  to  which  this  genus  is  related  in  Nature. 
Our  observer  can  "  know  "  the  family,  as  object,  on  no  other 
terms  than  these.  The  price  of  all  knowledge  is  experience^ 
and  this  price  he  must  pay. 

IV.  Lastly,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  concept  (that  is,  the 
observer's  actual  knowledge  of  the  family)  is  a  product  of 
two  equallg  real  cof actors,  the  observer  and  the  family  as 
subject  and  object.  The  observer  is  intelligent  in  himself, — 
more  or  less  so  according  to  his  native  capacity  and  the 
amount  of  his  previously  acquired  knowledge ;  the  family 
is  intelligible  in  itself, —  its  intelligibility  (since  all  rela- 
tions as  such  are  essentially  intelligible)  being  simply  the 
necessary  consequence  of  its  relational  constitution.  The 
concept,  as  actual  present  knowledge  of  the  family  by  the 
observer,  results  from  bringing  an  intelligent  subject  into 
actual  relationship  with  an  intelligible  object ;  it  is  deter- 
mined to  be  what  it  is,  and  not  otherwise,  by  the  united 
determinant  influences  of  both.  Certainly,  if  the  object 
did  not  impress,  affect,  or  act  upon  the  subject  in  some  way 
or  other,  it  could  never  be  known  by  the  subject  at  all,  and 
the  concept  would  not  in  the  least  degree  reproduce  its  re- 
lational constitution  ^  which  the  concept  incontrovertibly 
does,  if  it  is  real  knowledge  of  the  object  at  all.  Hoiv  this 
result  comes  to  pass  is  a  difficult  problem,  to  be  solved,  if 
possible,  by  the  Theory  of  Knowledge ;  but  that  it  comes 
to  pass  is  an  undeniable  fact,  if  any  real  knowledge  exists 
at  all.  Whatever  theory  may  be  advanced  to  explain  the 
'<  origin  of  knowledge,"  every  such  theory  must  recognize 
the  truth  that  subject  and  object  are  equally  real  co-factors 
in  all  real  knowledge,  or  else  must  come  under  the  ban  of 
all  theories  which  despise  and  falsify  facts.  The  influence 
of  the  object  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  real  knowledge  of  it 
exists ;  the  influence  of  the  subject  is  proved  by  the  fact 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  29 

tliat  this  real  knowledge  is  limited  and  imperfect.  But  the 
very  limitation  of  real  knowledge  of  the  object  in  itself  is 
proof  that  siich  real  knowledge  exists ;  for  nothing  can  be 
limited  that  is  not  itself  real. 

§  22.  Now  let  us  inquire  how  the  observer,  as  subject, 
and  the  family,  as  object,  would  be  related,  if  the  German 
Conceptualist  Theory  of  Universals  (namely,  that  the  sub- 
jective universal  concept,  or  "  Vorstellung,"  and  not  the 
objective  universal  genus,  is  the  real  object  of  knowledge) 
were  true. 

It  follows  from  the  German  Theory  that,  like  husband 
and  wife  in  the  old  common  law,  the  observer  and  the  family 
are  one,  and  the  observer  is  that  one.  According  to  this 
theory,  the  concept  is  the  only  real  object  of  knowledge ; 
the  genus  cannot  be  admitted  to  have  any  reality  at  all,  as 
distinguished  from  the  concept.  But  the  concept  of  the 
family,  in  the  case  supposed,  exists  nowhere  but  in  the  ob- 
server's mind;  hence  the  family,  so  far  as  it  really  exists, 
exists  only  in  the  observer's  mind,  and  cannot  exist  at  all 
outside  of  the  observer  himself. 

The  only  apparent  or  plausible  escape  from  this  absurd 
conclusion  is  to  argue  that  the  family  at  least  exists  in  the 
concepts  of  many  observers,  and  therefore  must  exist  out- 
side of  any  particular  observer.  But  to  this  argument  the 
reply  is  obvious  and  crushing :  namely,  that  "  many  ob- 
servers," if  thus  unguardedly  and  most  naively  conceded 
to  exist,  would  necessarily  constitute  a  real  objective  genus, 
independent  of  our  particular  observer  and  all  his  concepts  ; 
and  that,  if  one  such  real  genus  may  exist  and  be  known  as 
separate  from  his  concept  of  it,  it  is  preposterously  illogical 
to  refuse  to  recognize  another  such  genus  in  the  family. 
The  German  Theory  of  Universals  has  but  one  logical  ter- 
minus —  Solipsism,  or  the  philosophy  which  denies  all  real 
existence  except  to  the  solitary  philosopher  himself. 

In  short,  the  German  Theory,  if  logically  adhered  to, 


30  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

altogether  absorbs  or  extinguishes  the  object  in  the  subject, 
the  family  in  the  observer,  the  universe  in  the  theorist,  and 
destroys  thereby  the  possibility  of  any  real  or  scientific 
linoicledge  ;  while,  if  not  logically  adhered  to,  it  is  totally 
worthless  for  science  and  philosophy  alike.  Further  criti- 
cism of  it  is  unnecessary  here.  The  Scientific  Theory  of 
Universals,  applied  in  practice,  is  the  Scientific  Method  j 
and  that  will  be  the  subject  of  our  next  paper. 


The  Philosophij  of  Free  Religion.  31 


V. 

§  23.  What  is  the  Scientific  Method  ?  Nothing  is 
more  common  or  more  confusing  than  a  loose,  vague,  and 
indeterminate  use  of  this  phrase.  It  is  the  object  of  the 
present  paper  to  give  definiteness  and  scientific  precision 
to  a  much  abused  expression,  by  showing  that  the  Scientific 
Method  is  neitlier  more  nor  less  than  the  Universal 
Leakning-Process  —  the  process  by  which  man,  individual 
or  collective,  has  learned  everything  which  he  now  knows ; 
and,  further,  by  showing  that  this  universal  learning-process 
is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  Scientific  Theory  of 
Universals  applied  in  Practice  to  the  Acquisition 
OF  Knowledge. 

§  24.  If  science  is  real  knowledge  of  the  universe,  — 
that  is,  neither  ignorance  nor  error  mistaken  for  knowledge, 
—  then,  self-evidently,  the  '■'■  method "  of  science  is  nothing 
but  the  way  in  which  that  knowledge  has  been  acquired.  It 
is  no  mystery ;  it  is  the  familiar  process  by  which  we  have 
learned  whatever  we  really  know.  Common-sense  applies  this 
process  clumsily  on  a  small  scale ;  the  separate  sciences 
apply  it  skilfully  on  a  large  scale,  but  in  arbitrarily  limited 
fields  of  investigation ;  philosophy,  or  World-Science, 
applies  it  skilfully  on  the  largest  scale  to  the  universe  as  a 
whole.  The  fundamental  identity  of  the  learning-process 
in  common-sense,  in  science,  and  in  philosophy,  —  in  other 
words,  the  absolute  unity  and  continuity  of  method  in  all 
acquisition  of  knowledge,  —  is  the  constitutive  and  distinc- 
tive principle  of  scientific  philosophy  as  such. 

Nothing  could  be  more  unscientific,  unphilosophic,  or  dis- 
astrous to  the  cause  of  ripe  reason,  than  the  contempt  for 
so-called  "  common  thinking  "  which  is  fostered  by  the  un- 


32  The  PhilosopJaj  of  Free  Religion. 

modernized  philosophy  grounded  on  the  German  Theory  of 
Universals.  Common  thinking  is  only  immature  and  inac- 
curate thinking ;  but  the  maturest  and  most  accurate  think- 
ing must  first  pass  through  the  stage  of  immaturity  and  in- 
accuracy. The  difference  is  one  of  degree  only,  not  of  kind. 
There  is  but  one  universe,  whose  particular  phenomena 
change,  but  whose  essential  laws  are  unchanging ;  there  is 
but  one  Itnnian  reason,  whose  special  applications  vary,  but 
whose  essential  laws  are  unvarying ;  the  fundamental  unity 
of  the  universe  and  the  fundamental  unity  of  human  reason 
logically  necessitate  a  fundamental  unity  of  method  in  the 
application  of  human  reason  to  the  universe.  Hence  it  is  a 
thoroughly  irrational  and  incredible  supposition  that  there 
should  be  any  philosophic  method  whatever  which  is  funda^ 
mentally  different  from  the  Scientific  Method.  The  abso- 
lute unity  and  continuity  of  method  in  all  acquisition  of 
real  knowledge  is,  we  repeat,  the  first  principle  of  a  genu- 
inely scientific  philosophy. 

§  25.  Consider  once  more,  in  the  light  of  all  that  has 
preceded,  how  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Universals  determines 
necessarily  the  Object  of  Knowledge,  and  then  note  how 
this  determination  of  the  object  of  knowledge  explains  the 
one  and  only  possible  way  of  acquiring  knowledge  —  the 
universal  learning-process  or  Scientific  Method. 

I.  As  already  shown  at  length,  the  complete  object  of 
knowledge  is  never  the  Individual  Thing,  never  the  Univer- 
sal Concept,  but  always  the  Universal  Genus.  The  Genus 
is  the  unity  of  many  individual  things  reciprocally  related 
in  one  universal  kind ;  and  the  intelligible  essence  of  the 
Genus  is  this  internal  relational  system  of  the  whole  as  a 
whole.  The  Genus  may  or  may  not  be  related,  as  a  present 
object  of  knowledge,  to  a  present  subject  of  knowledge,  in 
a  present  act  of  knowledge  ;  but  this  non-essential  and  tran- 
sient relation  to  a  subject  in  no  wise  affects  or  changes  the 
internal  self-relatedness  in  which  the  intelligible  essence 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  33 

of  the  Genus  consists.  Nothing  but  this  internal  and  per- 
manent relational  constitution  of  the  Genus-in-itself  can 
explain  the  fact  that,  whenever  it  becomes  an  object  of 
knowledge,  many  independent  minds  or  subjects  of  knowl- 
edge derive  essentially  one  and  the  same  concept  from  it. 
This  significant  and  pregnant  fact  did  not  escape  the  eagle 
eye  of  Kant  himself,  when  he  said  ( Prolegomena,  §  18 )  : 
"There  would  be  no  reason  why  the  judgments  of  other 
minds  should  necessarily  agree  with  my  own  judgments, 
were  it  not  that  the  unity  of  the  object  to  which  these 
judgments  all  refer,  and  with  which  they  all  agree,  requires 
them  all  to  agree  one  with  another."  If  Kant  had  only 
adhered  to  this  profound  insight  into  the  independent,  im- ' 
manent,  and  determinant  constitution  of  the  object  as  a 
knoivn  thing-in-itself,  and  if  he  had  not  constantly  neutral- 
ized it  by  declaring  the  thing-in-itself  unknoivahle,  the  Ger- 
man Theory  of  Universals  would  not  have  been  for  a 
hundred  years  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  philos- 
ophy. 

II.  The  Concept  is  not  an  intermediate  third  term  be- 
tween the  object  and  the  subject  of  knowledge,  but  is  itself 
the  very  act  or  relation  of  knowledge  between  them.  The 
knowing  an  object  is  itself  the  concept  of  it.  Even  a  false 
concept  is  only  partially  false — the  false  combination  of 
elements  separately  true.  Nothing  could  have  been  more 
unfortunate  for  philosophy  than  the  clumsy  "  hypostasis," 
or  transformation  of  a  mere  act  or  relation  into  a  thing,  by 
which  the  Concept  has  been  set  up  in  German  metaphysic 
as  itself  the  only  real  object  of  knowledge.  The  perma- 
nence of  conceptual  knowledge'  is  a  fact  due  to  memory  ; 
but  this  fact  does  not  wipe  out  the  other  facts  that  the  ob- 
ject of  all  knowledge  is  the  genus  known,  and  that  knowledge 
perishes  when  the  genus  is  forgotten. 

III.  To  the  question,  "  What  is  that  ?  "  the  invariable 
answer  is,  "  A  book,"  "  A  house,"  ''  A  tree,"  or  some  other 


34  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

kind  of  things  —  a  genus  always.  The  amount  of  informa- 
tion imparted  by  the  answer  is  measur-ed  by  the  amount  of 
knowledge  respecting  that  kind  of  things  already  possessed 
by  the  inquirer.  Nothing  whatever  is  or  can  be  known  as 
absolutely  single  or  unrelated,  that  is,  as  out  of  its  kind. 
The  only  possible  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  is  that 
thing  ?  "  is  to  tell  the  kind  to  which  that  thing  belongs. 
Know  the  kind,  and  the  thing  is  so  far  known ;  know  all 
the  kinds  to  which  it  belongs,  and  the  thing  would  be  abso- 
lutely or  exhaustively  known.  If  absolute  or  exhaustive 
knowledge  of  anything  is  unattainable  by  man,  the  reason 
is  that  his  knowledge  of  the  innumerable  kinds  of  things  is 
necessarily  incomplete.  But  it  is  much  to  know  in  what 
knowledge  consists — much  to  know  that  knowledge  is  al- 
ways of  the  thing  through  its  kind  and  the  kind  through 
its  things  :  in  a  word,  that  its  object  is  necessarily  and  in- 
variably the  Genus-in-itself.  For  it  is  the  fact  of  the  inde- 
pendent, permanent,  and  immanent  self-relatedness  of  the 
Genus-in-itself  which  renders  the  universe  intelligible  ;  and 
it  is  thorough  understanding  and  appreciation  of  this  fact 
which  render  a  philosophy  of  the  universe  possible,  nay, 
inevitable.  Science  has  already  accumulated  abundant  ma- 
terials for  a  comprehensive  world-conception :  nothing  is 
now  needed  but  ability  to  comprehend  them. 

§  26.  From  all  this  it  follows  that  the  learning-process, 
identical  in  common-sense,  science,  and  philosophy,  must  be 
the  patient  and  continuous  Discovery  of  Genera  by  Ex- 
perience. If  the  internal  self-relatedness  of  the  Genus 
exists  independently  of  human  reason,  yet  is  knowable  and 
discoverable  by  it,  then  the  only  possible  learning-process 
must  be  the  Observation  of  Nature.  Such  has  been 
from  the  beginning  the  Scientific  Method  ;  and  this  is  noth- 
ing but  reducing  to  practice  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Uni- 
versals,  namely,  that  the  real  object  of  knowledge  is  the 
Genus  alone.     As  so  often  happens,  practice  has  gone  in 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  35 

advance  of  theory  ;  yet  theory  alone  ultimately  explains 
practice.  Scientific  practice  took  for  granted  the  existence 
and  knowableness  of  genera  and  species,  and  their  discover- 
ability by  observation.  Indifferent  to  all  philosophical 
skepticism,  it  resolutely  set  to  work  to  discover  them ;  and 
the  result  has  been  such  a  vast  accumulation  of  indubitable 
knowledge  of  Nature  as  to  confound  and  overawe  skepti- 
cism itself.  In  making  the  initial  assumption  of  knowable 
and  discoverable  genera  in  Xature,  and  in  employing  obser- 
vation and  experiment  as  its  means  of  investigation,  science 
has  only  improved  upon  the  immemorial  method  of  common- 
sense  —  the  method  which  every  child  necessarily  adopts 
in  its  earliest  acquisition  of  knowledge,  the  method  which 
every  man  adopts  in  the  world  of  affairs,  the  method  which 
every  skeptic  himself  adopts  in  his  ordinary  life.  And  it 
turns  out  in  the  end  that  this  practical  anethod,  tested  by  a 
thoroughly  modernized  theory  of  universals,  is  at  bottom 
the  only  philosophical  method  —  the  only  possible  f ounda,- 
tion  of  a  scientific  philosophy. 

For  from  the  German  Theory  of  Universals,  that  the 
real  object  of  knowledge  is  the  Concept  alone,  it  follows 
that  the  whole  learning-process  consists  in  the  mere  Dis- 
covery OF  Concepts  by  Consciousness  and  the  Develop- 
ment OF  Concepts  by  Pure  Reason,  independently  of 
real  genera  and  species  in  Nature  as  a  known  thing-in-itself . 
Hence  Kant  unequivocally  declares  (  Prolegomena,  §  3G  )  : 
"The  [human]  understanding  does  not  derive  its  own 
a  priori  laws  from  Nature,  but  prescribes  them  to  it." 
Again  (  §  38)  :  "  The  unity  of  objects  is  determined  merely 
by  the  [human]  understanding,  and  indeed  according  to 
conditions  which  lie  in  its  own  constitution ;  and  thus  the 
[human]  understanding  is  the  origin  of  the  universal  order 
of  Nature,  since  it  comprehends  all  phenomena  under  its 
own  laws,"  etc.  In  other  words,  Nature,  as  a  reality  ex- 
isting independently  of  the  human  understanding,  has  no 


36  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

discoverable  unity  or  order  whatever,  and  is  absolutely  un- 
knowable in  itself.  This  is  a  flat  denial  of  the  results  of 
science,  which  consist  in  verified  discoveries  of  an  imma- 
nent and  generic  order  and  unity  of  Nature,  known  by,  but 
in  itself  independent  of,  the  human  understanding.  Thus 
the  German  Theory  of  Universals,  denying  all  knowledge 
of  real  genera  in  themselves,  denies  the  truth  of  science, 
and  the  possibility  of  any  method  by  which  the  immanent 
constitution  of  Nature  may  be  learned  by  man ;  and  there 
we  leave  it. 

§  27.  Now  the  Scientific  Method,  whether  practised  un- 
skilfully and  narrowly  by  common-sense,  skilfully  and 
broadly  by  science,  or  profoundly  and  comprehensively  by 
philosophy,  consists  in  three  essential  steps. 

I.  Observation.  Man  observes  Nature,  and  thereby 
gradually  discovers  its  real  genera.  Since  the  real  object 
of  knowledge  is  invariably  the  Genus-in-itself,  there  must 
be  observation  and  comparison  of  many  individual  things 
before  the  generic  relations  which  unite  them  in  one  natural 
kind  can  be  even  in  part  discovered,  —  that  is,  before  knowl- 
edge as  such  begins.  These  generic  relations  ramify  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  exhaustive  observation  by  man.  Hence 
result  the  actual  limitation  and  imperfection  of  human 
knowledge,  on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
absurdity  of  setting  up  any  arbitrary  or  fixed  limits  of 
human  knowledge,  so  long  as  there  is  a  possibility  of 
making  further  observation,  or  of  inventing  artificial  aids 
to  observation,  or  of  strengthening  and  developing  the  ob- 
serving powers  themselves.  Grant  the  existence  of  observ- 
ing powers  in  Man  and  the  existence  of  genera  to  be  observed 
in  Nature,  and  science  is  possible;  deny  either  factor  of 
human  knowledge,  and  science  is  impossible.  It  is  wholly 
immaterial  to  the  truth  of  science  whether  we  can,  or  cannot, 
frame  a  Theory  of  Knowledge  which  shall  explain  exactly 
and  fully  in  what  observation  itself  consists.     How  we  ob- 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  37 

serve  may  be  doubtful ;  that  we  observe  is  indubitable. 
Kant  reasons  that  we  have  no  faculty  by  which  to  observe 
things  in  themselves,  and  therefore  cannot  know  them ;  sci- 
entific philosophy  reasons  that  we  do  know  genera  in  them- 
selves, and  therefore  must  have  faculties  by  which  to  observe 
them.  The  very  first  step  in  learning  anything  is  Observa- 
tion, and  common-sense,  science,  and  philosophy  alike  would 
be  impossible  without  it. 

II.  Hypothesis.  Man  not  only  observes  real  genera 
in  being,  but  also  creates  ideal  generalizations  in  thought. 
By  imagination,  inference,  and  reasoning,  he  combines  the 
data  of  observation  into  tentative  concepts  of  possible  real 
kinds.  All  reasoning  is  classification.  Deduction  is  reason- 
ing from  the  constitution  of  the  universal  kind  to  that  of 
its  individual  things ;  induction  is  reasoning  from  the  con- 
stitution of  the  individual  things  to  that  of  their  universal 
kind.  The  syllogism  itself,  the  universal  type  and  instru- 
ment of  all  reasoning,  aiSrms  both  in  premises  and  in  con- 
clusion the  reality  of  generic  relations,  and  absolutely 
presupposes  the  truth  of  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Univer- 
sals.  Hypothesis,  the  only  means  by  which  man  can  freely 
enlarge  his  intellectual  horizon,  is  itself  a  mere  bridge 
between  initial  observation  and  final  observation.  For  no 
hypothesis  as  such  is  knowledge;  but  hypothesis  becomes 
knowledge,  when  new  experience  has  set  upon  it  the  seal  of 
its  own  confirmation. 

III.  ExPEKiMENTAL  VERIFICATION.  This  is  the  testing 
of  hypothesis  by  fresh  observation.  If  an  ideal  generaliza- 
tion, subjected  to  this  crucial  test,  proves  to  have  been  a 
genuine  anticipation  of  experience,  it  can  only  be  because 
fresh  observation  at  last  finds  the  real  genus  which  the  ideal 
generalization  anticipated,  and  to  the  discovery  of  which  it 
successfully  guided.  This  is  the  essence  of  all  Verification, 
the  last  step  of  the  Scientific  Method,  the  confirmation  of 
hypothesis  by  fresh  observation,  the  discovery  in  Nature  of 


38  The  Thilosopliy  of  Free  Religion. 

a  real  genus  which  an  ideal  generalization  sagaciously  di- 
vined  in  thought.  The  Scientific  Method  begins  with  Ob- 
SERVATioi«r,  proceeds  with  Hypothesis,  and  ends  with 
Fresh  Observation  in  Experimental  Verification; 
and  what  it  observes,  what  it  anticipates,  what  it  verifies, — 
in  one  word,  what  it  learns,  —  is  invariably  the  Real 
Genus-in-itself. 

§  28.  Thus  the  Scientific  Method,  or  the  universal  learn- 
ing-process by  which  all  human  knowledge  is  acquired,  is 
neither  more  nor  less  than  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Univer- 
sals  reduced  to  practice.  The  doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Genus- 
in-itself,  as  discovered  by  the  Scientific  Method,  is  the 
Theory  of  Being  ;  and  that  will  be  the  subject  of  our  next 
paper. 


The  Philosopluj  of  Free  Eeligion.  39 


VI. 

§  29.  The  Scientific,  Modem,  or  American  Theory  of 
Universals,  which  results  necessarily  from  analysis  of  the 
Scientific  Method,  is  Scientific  Eealism,  as  opposed  to 
Philosophical  Idealism;  and  it  determines  the  subdi- 
vision of  scientific  philosophy  into  its  three  great  depart- 
ments, the  theories  of  Being,  of  Knowing,  and  of  Doing. 
The  Scientific  Theory  of  Being  results  from  analysis  of  the 
Genus-in-itself,  and  constitutes  Ontology  or  Constructive 
Realism,  as  opposed  to  all  forms  of  Constructive  Idealism. 
The  Scientific  Theory  of  Knowledge  results  from  analysis 
of  the  Concept,  and  constitutes  Psychology  or  Critical 
Realism,  as  opposed  to  all  forms  of  Transcendental  or 
Critical  Idealism.  The  Scientific  Theory  of  Conduct  results 
from  analysis  of  the  Word,  and  constitutes  Anthroponomy 
(including  Ethics,  Politics,  and  Art  in  its  widest  sense). 
Sociology,  or  Ethical  Realism,  as  opposed  to  all  forms  of 
Ethical  Idealism.  The  Scientific  Theory  of  the  Universe, 
as  the  absolute  union  of  Being,  Knowing,  and  Doing  in  the 
One  and  All,  results  from  comprehension  of  these  three 
theories  in  complete  organic  unity,  and  constitutes  Organic 
Philosophy,  Scientific  Theology,  or  Religious  Realism,  as 
opposed  to  all  forms  of  Religious  Idealism. 

§  30.  The  problem  of  the  scientific  theory  of  Being  is  to 
determine,  so  far  as  it  can  be  determined  by  the  philosoph- 
ical use  of  the  scientific  method,  the  actual  constitution  of 
the  universe  as  a  whole,  that  is,  as  the  Highest  Known  Kind 
of  Real  or  Concrete  Being;  and  thereby  to  form  a  Scien- 
tific AVorld-Conception. 

§  31.  In  order  to  grasp  the  full  meaning  of  this  problem, 
let  us  take,  for  example,  a  familiar  instance  of  the  known 


40  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Itelujiun. 

kind  in  the  human  race.  The  words  "  Man,"  "  Humanity/' 
and  "Mankind,"  although  in  popular  use  employed  vaguely 
and  almost  interchangeably,  will  serve  our  turn,  if  for 
present  purposes  we  may  be  permitted  to  limit  their  signi- 
fication by  precise  definitions. 

By  "  Man,"  then,  let  us  understand  the  Conckete  Indi- 
vidual ;  that  is,  any  and  every  living  member  of  the  human 
race  in  the  fulness  of  his  individual  reality,  including,  on 
the  one  hand,  all  that  is  peculiar  to  him  as  a  particular  man, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  all  that  is  common  to  him  with 
other  men  in  general. 

By  "  Humanity,"  let  us  understand  the  Abstract  Class 
Essence,  including  only  the  universal  nature  which  is  com- 
mon to  all  men  as  a  class,  and  excluding  all  that  is  peculiar 
to  each  particular  man  as  an  individual.  "  Humanity  "  thus 
expresses  what  we  all  know  as  "human  nature,"  which 
everybody  recognizes  as  a  mere  abstraction  by  itself  alone, 
and  which  nobody  nowadays  mistakes  for  an  independent 
reality ;  it  is  real,  but  real  only  as  existing  in  all  real  men. 

Lastly,  by  "  Mankind,"  let  us  understand  the  Conckete 
Universal  Kind  or  Genus,  the  human  race  as  a  whole, 
including  all  concrete  individuals  with  all  their  individual 
peculiarities,  and  including,  therefore,  that  universal 
"  human  nature"  which,  though  a  mere  abstraction  by  itself 
alone,  is  nevertheless  completely  realized  in  each  real  indi- 
vidual, and  in  the  race  as  a  real  whole  of  real  individuals. 

§  32.  These  definitions  bring  out  clearly  the  fact  that 
"Humanity,"  the  abstract  class  essence,  is  realized  equally 
in  the  individual,  "  Man,"  and  in  the  genus,  "  Mankind  "  ; 
it  constitutes  that  by  Avhich  we  reason  from  one  to  the 
other.  Such  is  necessarily  the  case  with  every  genus.  In 
every  genus,  the  constitution  of  the  Concrete  Individual 
and  the  constitution  of  the  Concrete  Kind  reciprocally 
make  known  or  reveal  each  other,  just  so  far  as  each  real- 
izes and  contains  the   Abstract  Class  Essence.      True, 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  41 

the  individual  lias  his  individual  peculiarities,  such  as  his 
"face"  or  ''make  "  of  individual  features  as  a  whole,  which 
is  never  exactly  duplicated  in  any  other  individual ;  while 
the  genus  equally  has  its  generic  peculiarities,  such  as 
heredity,  bisexuality,  gregariousness,  and  all  other  attributes 
which  can  exist  only  through  the  social  correlation  of  many 
individuals  in  one  kind.  These  peculiarities  are  not  com- 
mon both  to  genus  and  to  individual ;  but  the  abstract  class 
essence,  unreal  by  itself  alone,  yet  realized  in  both,  is 
common  to  both.  Hence  the  constitutions  of  the  genus  as 
genus  and  of  the  individual  as  individual,  containing  equally 
this  common  identical  element,  necessarily  repeat,  reflect, 
or  reveal  each  other  to  that  extent;  knowledge  of  this 
common  element  in  one  is  necessarily  knowledge  of  it  in 
the  other  also.  The  individual  is  a  known  fact ;  society  is 
no  less  a  known  fact ;  but  each  is  known  only  throvigh  the 
other,  and  what  makes  either  known  is  what  makes  both 
known  at  the  same  time.  This  is  the  reason  why,  in  gen- 
eral, the  individual  thing  can  be  known  only  through  its 
kind,  and  the  kind  only  through  its  individual  things. 
Upon  this  great  principle  of  the  Eeciprocal  Eevelation 
OF  Thing  and  Kind  rests,  on  the  one  hand,  the  possibil- 
ity of  Induction,  or  reasoning  from  the  constitution  of  indi- 
vidual things  to  that  of  their  universal  kind,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  possibility  of  Deduction,  or  reasoning  from 
the  constitution  of  a  universal  kind  to  that  of  its  individual 
things.  It  is  the  antecedent  condition,  not  only  of  all  scien- 
tific hypothesis,  but  even  of  the  syllogism  itself,  the  uni- 
versal type  and  instrument  of  all  reasoning  whatever.  It 
is  safe  to  say,  therefore,  that  no  principle,  whether  in  formal 
or  in  applied  logic,  has  a  firmer  foundation  in  science,  nay, 
in  the  eternal  constitution  of  reason  itself,  than  this  princi- 
ple which  results  from  analysis  of  the  Real  Genus-in-itself : 
namely,  The  Individual  Concrete  Thing  and  the  Uni- 
versal Concrete  Kind  Heveal  Each  Other  through 


42  The  Thilosojyhy  of  Free  Religion. 

THE  Abstract  Class  Essence  which  is  common  to  both. 
On  its  logical  side,  this  principle  is  the  Fundamental  Law 
of  Human  Knowledge;  on  its  ontological  side,  it  is  the 
Fu7idamQntal  Law  of  the  Natural  Self -Rev  elation  of  Being 
to  Thought.  It  constitutes,  therefore,  the  foundation  of  the 
Scientific  Theory  of  Being, 

§  33.  Now  it  is  precisely  this  profound  and  irrefutable 
principle,  this  indispensable  basis  of  all  science  and  all 
reasoning,  this  necessary  constitution  of  the  Real  Genus 
which  renders  the  universe  intelligible  by  mind,  that  Agnos- 
ticism unwittingly  aud  blunderingly  violates.  Philosoph- 
ical, conceptualistic,  or  idealistic  Agnosticism  builds  in  vain 
on  the  exploded  German  Theory  of  Universals  (see  §§9- 
22),  and  needs  no  further  notice  here.  Popular  Agnosti- 
cism, however,  which  has  no  Theory  of  Universals  and 
therefore  no  Philosophy  at  all,  professes  to  build  on  the 
facts  of  science,  and  to  be  as  realistic  as  science  itself. 
While  it  claims  scientific  knowledge  of  genera  and  species 
in  Nature,  as  real  kinds  of  real  things,  it  at  the  same  time 
denies  all  scientific  knowledge  of  Nature  in  its  infinite 
unity,  as  the  supreme  Kind  of  Kinds, —  denies,  that  is,  the 
possibility  of  a  Scientific  World-Conception.  It  thus 
proves  itself  totally  incapable  of  perceiving  that,  from  the 
mere  logical  nature  of  the  case,  scientific  knowledge  of  finite 
genera-in-themseloes  is  7iecessarily,  just  so  far,  scientific 
knowledge  of  the  Infinite  Genus-in-itself —  totally  incajiable 
of  perceiving  that  two  in  one  hand  and  tivo  in  the  other 
hand  constitute  four  in  both  hands.  In  other  words,  popu- 
lar Agnosticism  possesses  all  the  elements  of  a  Scientific 
World-Conception,  but  does  not  possess  synthetic  ability 
enough  to  put  them  together  or  see  the  whole  in  the  sum 
of  the  parts. 

For,  precisely  as  the  individual  thing  is  related  to  its 
kind,  so  is  the  kind  related  to  its  superior  kind,  this  to  the 
kind  next  superior,  and  so  on  till  that  highest  kind  of  all  is 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  43 

reached  which  is  identical  with  ISTature,  the  Universe,  the 
One  and  All  of  Existence, —  with  Infinite  Real  Being ;  and, 
precisely  as  the  constitution  of  the  lowest  kind  is  manifested 
or  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  the  lowest  individual 
thing  of  that  kind  through  the  abstract  class  essence  which 
is  common  to  both,  so  is  the  constitution  of  the  supreme 
Kind  of  Kinds,  or  Infinite  Real  Being,  manifested  or  revealed 
in  the  constitution  of  the  whole  vast  chain  of  kinds  down 
to  that  individu'um  which  closes  the  series,  be  it  atom, 
ether-unit,  monad-soul,  or  what  it  may.  The  minimum  of 
real  knowledge,  therefore,  is,  just  so  far,  real  knowledge  of 
the  constitution  of  the  Universe  in  its  unity,  totality,  and 
infinitude.  In  other  words,  the  nature  of  the  Infinite  Whole 
reveals  itself  necessarily  in  the  nature  of  each  and  all  of  its 
infinitesimal  parts  and  each  and  all  of  its  included  kinds,  in 
proportion  to  the  relative  elevation  of  each  part  or  kind  in 
the  scale  of  being.  This  not  only  is  so,  but  must  be  so,  if 
the  Scientific  Theory  of  Universals  is  true ;  and  there  is  no 
truth  in  science  or  in  human  reason,  if  that  theoiy  is  false. 
It  is  logically  impossible  to  deny  all  scientific  knowledge  of 
the  Universe  in  its  infinite  unity  without  at  the  same  time 
denying  all  scientific  knowledge  of  it  in  its  infinite  multi- 
plicity ;  for  knowledge  of  the  least  of  its  parts  is,  jDrecisely 
to  that  extent,  knowledge  of  the  whole.  If  popular  Agnos- 
ticism only  had  enough  philosophy  to  understand  and  follow 
out  the  logic  of  its  own  denials,  it  would  be  a  mad  plunge 
into  bottomless,  shoreless,  sky  less  Ignorance  —  the  suicide 
of  reason  itself  in  a  delirium  of  cowardice  and  self-distrust. 
From  this  self-annihilation  it  escapes  only  by  contradicting 
itself  more  stoutly  and  more  unblushingly  than  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed ;  and  for  this  reason  alone  it  is  safe  to  predict 
that  the  reign  of  the  Agnostic  Creed  over  modern  liberalism 
will  be  short. 

§  34.     In  its   simplest  form,   then,  the  problem  of  the 
Scientific  Theory  of  Being  is:   "  What  kind  of  a  Universe  is 


44  The  Philosojihy  of  Free  Religion. 

this  ?  "  Either  the  Universe  is  of  no  kind  at  all  (which  is 
absurd),  or  else  its  kind  must  be  determined  and  discovered 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  known  universal  law  of  all 
kinds :  namely,  the  Becijn'ocul  Revelation  of  Thing  and 
Kind  through  the  Abstract  Class  Essence  which  is  common 
to  both.  The  problem  can  be  solved  only  on  the  principle 
that  the  essential  constitution  of  the  Universe  more  or  less 
repeats,  reflects  and  reveals  itself  in  miniature  in  the  con- 
stitution of  each  of  the  innumerable  concrete  kinds  of  which 
it  is  itself  the  absolute  unity,  although  it  cannot  completely 
reveal  itself  except  to  itself  in  this  same  absolute  unity.  It 
is  not  necessary  that  all  of  these  kinds  contained  within 
the  Universe  should  be  known  by  man,  in  order  to  enable 
him  to  attain  real  knowledge  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Universe  as  a  whole,  and  thereby  to  form  a  scientific  world- 
conception;  real  knowledge  of  any  of  these  kinds  is,  just 
so  far,  real  knowledge  of  the  Universe  as  the  supreme 
Kind  of  Kinds,  and,  the  better  its  internal  subordinate 
kinds  are  known,  so  much  the  greater  will  be  man's  knowl- 
edge of  the  supreme  Kind  of  Kinds  itself.  Hence  the 
orderly  progress  of  science  is  the  natural  growth  of  man's 
knowledge  of  Infinite  Being,  and  constitutes  Revelation 
in  that  strictly  natural  sense  of  the  word  in  which  alone 
science  can  employ  it. 

Anything  arbitrary,  miraculous,  or  supernatural,  anything 
beyond  or  contrary  to  experience,  anything  inconsistent 
with  known  fact  or  known  law,  anything  incapable  of  veri- 
fication by  ascertained  congruity  with  the  already  ascer- 
tained Order  of  Nature,  would  be  utterly  inadmissible  in 
scientific  philosophy,  and  therefore  utterly  inadmissible 
here.  For  this  reason  the  thoroughly  transcendental  con- 
ception of  the  "  Unknowable,"  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
of  the  Non-Existent  or  the  Nonsensical,  must  be  rigorously 
excluded  as  a  mere  superstition,  since  it  confessedly  denotes 
that  which  is  beyond  all  possible  knowledge  or  experience. 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  45 

The  Unknown,  however,  must  be  admitted  to  be  as  certainly 
real  as  the  Known,  since  every  step  in  the  triumphant 
march  of  science,  every  discovery  in  tlie  long  history  of 
man,  has  essentially  consisted  in  the  conversion  of  tlie  Un- 
known into  the  Known,  and  since  thus,  by  the  widest  possi- 
ble induction,  the  reality  of  the  Unknown  has  been  estab- 
lished beyond  all  controversy  as  an  object  of  perpetually 
possible  experience.  No  "transcendental"  conception  — 
no  conception,  that  is,  which  transcends  actual  or  possible 
experience  —  can  be  recognized  as  legitimate  in  scientific 
philosophy;  there  is  no  such  thing,  therefore,  as  "Tran- 
scendental Realism  "  —  a  name  which  is  self -contradictory, 
and  hence  utterly  deroid  of  meaning. 

It  remains  now  to  apply  the  principle  of  the  Reciprocal 
Revelation  of  Thing  and  Kind  to  the  solution  of  the  problem 
of  the  Scientific  Theory  of  Being :  "  What  kind  of  a  Uni- 
verse is  this  ?  " 

§  35.  The  Universe,  as  the  supreme  Kind  of  Kinds 
which  contains  all  other  kinds  within  itself,  is  the  real 
genus-in-itself  in  its  absolute  and  all-comprehensive  mode 
of  Infinite  Being.  It  cannot,  therefore,  exist  as  one 
among  many  universes  of  like  nature  ;  it  must  be  the  One 
and  All,  or  it  is  not  the  universe.  Hence  the  multiplicity 
involved  in  the  essence  of  every  kind  as  such  must  be  found, 
in  the  case  of  the  supreme  Kind  of  Kinds,  not  outside  of, 
but  within,  its  own  infinite  unity ;  that  is,  the  constitution 
of  the  Universe  as  a  whole  cannot  be  discovered  by  com- 
paring it  with  other  infinite  wholes  (but  one  infinite  whole 
being  possible),  but  only  by  studying  the  constitution  of 
its  own  finite  parts.  Each  known  part  reveals  one  real 
character  of  the  whole ;  all  the  known  parts  together  reveal 
all  the  real  characters  of  the  whole  which  have  thus  far 
come  within  the  reach  of  human  knowledge.  Whatever 
parts  or  characters  remain  still  unknown  can  only  supple- 
ment, never  subvert,  the  reality  of  those  already  known. 


46  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

Otherwise  knowledge  itself  is  an  absolute  impossibility, 
science  is  all  an  illusion,  and,  as  Pindar  sang,  "Man  is  a 
shadow's  dream." 

§  36.  Kow  each  of  the  real  and  concrete  forms  of  exist- 
ence which  are  known  to  man,  boundless  as  their  number 
and  variety  may  appear,  falls  nevertheless  under  one  or 
another  of  three  great  categorical  Types  of  Eeal  Being  : 
namely,  the  Machine,  the  Organism,  and  the  Person. 
The  grounds  of  this  division  cannot  be  given  at  present; 
they  will  sufficiently  manifest  themselves  in  the  course  of 
what  follows.  The  original  question,  "What  kind  of  a 
Universe  is  this  ?  "  becomes  now  the  more  definite  question, 
"  To  which  of  the  three  great  types  of  real  being,  Machine, 
Organism,  or  Person,  does  the  Universe  belong  ?  "  The 
subject  of  our  next  paper  will  be  to  consider  whether  the 
Machine  alone  constitutes  an  adequate  basis  for  a  scientific 
world-conception. 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  ReJlgioyi.  47 


VII. 

§  37.  The  real  essence  of  the  individual  thing  and  the 
real  essence  of  the  universal  kind  more  or  less  repeat,  exem- 
plify, and  manifest  each  other  through  the  abstract  class 
essence  which  is  common  to  both.  This  fundamental  law 
of  the  Eeciprocal  Revelation  of  Thing  and  Kind  (see 
§§  31,  32)  is  inherent  in  the  constitution  of  every  real  genus- 
in-itself ;  it  is  equally  inherent  in  the  constitution  of  every 
concept.  Hence  it  constitutes,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Law 
OF  THE  Natural  Self-Eevelation  of  Being  to  Thought. 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Absolute  Condition  of  Hu- 
man Knowledge  ;  and  the  scientific  method  is  the  practi- 
cal application  of  it  in  the  study  of  Nature,  The  abstract 
class  essence  of  a  kind,  determined  exactly  (though  never 
exhaustively)  by  the  scientific  method,  is  identical,  as  a  sys- 
tem of  relations,  with  the  Scientific  Concept  of  that  kind, 
and,  by  means  of  scientific  nomenclature,  receives  measura- 
bly exact  verbal  embodiment  in  the  Scientific  Definition. 
Upon  the  possibility  of  this  exact  determination  and  dis- 
crimination of  real  kinds  in  the  real  system  of  Nature,  giving 
rise  to  a  complete  hierarchy  of  scientific  concepts  of  abstract 
class  essences,  depends  unconditionally  the  possibility  of  all 
Scientific  Classification.  Science  would  vanish  into 
Nescience,  if  these  principles  of  Scientific  Eealism  could  be 
overthrown. 

§  38.  Now  the  great  system  of  natural  classification, 
carried  as  far  as  possible  by  the  various  special  sciences  in 
their  various  limited  fields  of  investigation,  must  be  carried 
still  further  by  scientific  philosophy  or  World-Science,  and 
culminates  in  the  discovery  of  Three  Primordial  Types 
OF  Real  Being  in  Nature,  so  far  as  Nature  has  yet  come 


48  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

within  the  scope  of  the  investigating  faculties  of  mankind. 
The  physical  sciences  find  their  ultimate  concrete  unit  in 
the  Atom,  as  individualized  out  of  universal  cosmical  Ether, 
—  the  physiological  or  biological  sciences  in  the  Cell,  as 
individualized  out  of  universal  living  Protoplasm, —  and  the 
psychological  or  moral  sciences  in  the  Self,  as  individual- 
ized out  of  universal  human  Mind;  but  they  find  their 
proximate  concrete  units  respectively  in  the  Machine,  the 
Organism,  and  the  Person.  It  is  upon  these  three  Natural 
Types  of  Eeal  Being,  as  actually  known  in  human  experi- 
ence, that  scientific  philosophy  must  found  its  only  possible 
scientific  world-conception  or  Idea  of  Nature. 

§  39.  Let  us,  then,  begin  by  determining  exactly  the 
scientific  concept  of  the  Machine,  as  we  find  it  actually  and 
concretely  presented  in  human  experience,  in  order  to  dis- 
cover how  far  it  throws  light  upon  the  total  constitution  of 
Nature ;  that  is,  how  far  it  is  scientifically  legitimate,  in 
accordance  with  the  law  of  the  reciprocal  revelation  of  thing 
and  kind,  to  conceive  the  Universe  in  its  unity  as  a  Machine. 

§  40.  Professor  T.  M.  Goodeve  {The  Elements  of  Mech- 
anism, London,  1886),  begins  his  treatise  with  the  follow- 
ing definition :  "  A  Machine  is  an  assemblage  of  moving 
parts,  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  transmitting  motion  or 
force,  and  of  modifying,  in  various  ways,  the  motion  or 
force  so  transmitted." 

A  distinguished  physicist,  in  a  private  letter  to  the  writer 
under  date  of  June  6,  1889,  gives  another  definition,  sub- 
stantially identical  with  the  preceding,  but  in  some  respects 
more  precise  from  an  exclusively  mechanical  point  of  view : 
"  My  definition  of  a  Machine  is  a  collocation  of  matter  having 
for  its  function  the  transference  of  motion  or  the  transforma- 
tion of  motion." 

It  will  be  noticed  by  keen  critics  that,  in  these  definitions, 
(1)  the  Machine  is  only  vaguely  conceived  as  a  unit,  and  (2) 
that  the  expressions  ''  constructed  for  the  purpose "  and 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  49 

"having  for  its  function"  both  introduce  extra-mechanical 
conceptions  —  the  former  a  conception  which  is  strictly 
psychological,  and  the  latter  a  conception  which  is  strictly 
physiological  (not  here  mathematical).  It  is  possible  to 
devise  a  rigorously  mechanical  definition,  as  follows  :  — 

A  Machine  is  a  material  Whole  of  collocated  material 
Parts,  by  which,  both  as  Whole  and  as  Parts,  Motion  is  either 
transferred  or  transformed. 

§  41.  For  all  the  uses  of  mechanics  or  physics,  this  last 
definition  is  quite  sufficient,  because  these  sciences  very 
properly  limit  their  consideration  of  the  Machine  to  its  ex- 
clusively physical  and  mathematical  relations,  which  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  questions,  "  Who  made  it  ?  "  and 
"  What  was  it  made  for  ?  "  They  are  satisfied,  therefore, 
with  an  extremely  imperfect  and  mutilated  concept  of  the 
Machine ;  their  special  problems  never  involve  that  concept 
in  its  fulness  and  integrity,  as  it  is  derived  from  all  actual 
experience.  The  anthropological  sciences,  however,  such 
as  sociology,  archaeology,  or  political  economy,  could  not 
advance  a  step,  if  they  were  limited  to  that  skeleton  concept 
of  a  purely  Abstract  Machine,  transcending  all  actual 
and  possible  experience,  which  satisfies  all  the  require- 
ments of  physics  or  mechanics ;  it  is  the  Real  Machine, 
not  the  ghost  of  it,  —  or  rather  the  full  and  integral 
concept  of  the  Eeal  Machine  as  drawn  from  human 
experience,  not  this  same  concept  with  essential  parts 
omitted, —  which  alone  can  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the 
anthropological  sciences.  Hence  we  find  two  widely  differ- 
ent concepts  of  the  Machine,  one  lopped  or  truncated  in 
physics  and  mechanics,  the  other  rounded  and  complete  in 
anthropology,  yet  both  equally  scientific  and  equally  useful 
as  the  basis  of  sound  scientific  inferences. 

§42.  For  instance,  take  the  axe- — a  tool  being  only  a 
very  simple  case  of  the  Machine. 

Physics  would  consider  the  axe  in  use  (an  axe  not  in  use 


50  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

■would  cease  to  be  a  Machine  at  all)  as  being  only  a  mass  of 
matter  in  motion,  and  doing  work  in  the  communication  of 
motion  to  some  other  mass  of  matter  —  would  calculate  its 
momentum,  or  quantity  of  motion,  as  the  product  of  its  mass 
by  its  velocity,  and  its  striking  force,  or  kinetic  energy,  as 
the  product  of  half  its  mass  by  the  square  of  its  velocity. 
That  is,  physics  wovild  conceive  the  axe  solely  as  a  link  in 
the  great  chain  of  physical  causes  and  effects  —  would  recog- 
nize it  only  as  under  the  law  of  causality,  and  ignore  it 
altogether  as  under  the  law  of  finality  —  would  treat  it  ex- 
clusively as  a  material  fact,  and  refuse  all  inquiry  into  its 
origin  or  purposes  as  involving  extra-physical  conceptions 
and  problems.  And  this  eviscerated  concept  of  the  Abstract 
Machine,  being  sufficient  for  all  purely  physical  problems, 
would  be  all  that  is  properly  admissible  into  the  science  of 
pure  physics. 

Bvit  anthropology  would  consider  the  axe  only  as  a  Eeal 
Machine  —  would  conceive  it  as  essentially  a  tool  or  weapon 
constructed  by  man,  and  constituted  as  a  causal  means  to 
some  definite  human  end,  such  as  chopping  wood  or  killing 
an  enemy.  This  is  the  concept  of  the  axe  in  its  essence  and 
its  integrity,  as  a  E-eal  Machine  known  in  human  experience. 
If  a  stone  axe-head  were  found  buried  deeply  in  some  ancient 
alluvial  deposit,  archaeology  would  take  it  to  be  a  cogent 
proof  of  the  existence  of  man  himself  as  its  maker  in  im- 
memorial antiquity,  and  would  reconstruct  out  of  it  a  whole 
past  of  palaeolithic  or  neolithic  savagery.  This  inference 
of  archaeology  would  be  precisely  as  sound,  scientific,  and 
necessary  as  any  possible  inference  of  physics,  and  would 
lead  to  this  general  anthropological  definition :  — 

A  Machine  is  a  Causal  Means  between  Man  and  some 
definite  IIuTnan  End,  both  external  to  the  Machine  itself 

Is  it  not  plain  that,  in  order  to  understand  the  Real 
Machine  in  its  integrity,  as  opposed  to  the  Abstract  Machine 
in  its  partiality,  science  itself  requires  us  to  supplement  the 


The  Pliilosophy  of  Free  Religion.  51 

physical  with  the  anthropological  concept  of  it,  at  least  so 
far  as  to  recognize  the  causal  and  the  teleological  elements 
as  equally  essential  in  its  constitution  ? 

§  43.  Scientific  philosophy,  however,  must  see  further 
than  physics,  anthropology,  or  any  other  special  science. 
Franklin  described  man  as  "  the  tool-making  animal " ;  and 
the  construction  of  machinery  in  general  unquestionably 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  civilization.  From  the  simple 
tool,  such  as  the  axe,  the  needle,  or  the  fork,  up  to  the 
vastest  and  most  complicated  machine,  such  as  the  printing- 
press,  the  Jacquard  silk-loom,  the  ship,  the  factory,  the 
cathedral,  the  railroad,  the  telegraph,  or  the  city,  the  con- 
struction of  machinery,  as  the  practical  work  of  intelligence 
in  the  subjection  of  external  Nature  to  man,  is,  in  one  point 
of  view,  at  once  the  cause  and  the  effect  of  all  human  progress 
in  the  knowledge  of  Nature ;  for,  in  telescope,  microscope, 
spectroscope,  laboratory,  observatory,  museum,  or  library, 
science,  no  less  than  industry  and  commerce,  depends  upon 
the  Keal  Machine. 

But  man  is  not  the  only  animal  which  makes  machines. 
Honeycombs,  ant-hills,  spider-webs,  birdsnests,  beaver-dams, 
fox-burrows, —  all  such  constructions  are  essentially  ma- 
chines; nay,  even  climbing-plants  convert  projections  or 
mere  roughnesses  of  contiguous  surfaces  into  ladders  or 
machines  for  raising  themselves  into  the  sunlight.  It 
matters  not  whether  the  end  which  a  given  machine  effects 
originates  in  human  reason,  in  animal  instinct,  or  in  the 
depths  of  organic  constitution  as  such :  the  essence  of  the 
Eeal  Machine  is  to  ynediate  causally  between  an  Organism 
and  its  End,  and  whatever  does  that  is  a  Eeal  Machine. 

§  44.  Let  us  see,  then,  whether  it  may  not  be  possible 
to  comprehend  all  the  elements  of  truth  contained  in  the 
physical  and  the  anthropological  definitions  of  the  Machine 
in  a  higher  philosophical  definition.  It  is  the  aim  of  physics 
to  include  only  the  strictly  causal  element  in  its  concept. 


52  The  Philosojjhy  of  Free  Religion. 

and  carefully  to  exclude  from  it  all  recognition  of  the  teleo- 
logical  element;  hence  the  result  is  a  definition  of  the 
Abstract  Machine,  quite  adequate  to  all  the  problems  of 
physics,  but  totally  inadequate  to  problems  involving  the 
Real  Machine.  It  is  the  aim  of  anthropology  to  include  in 
its  concept  both  the  causal  and  the  teleological  elements  so 
far  as  they  relate  to  man,  but  no  further ;  hence  the  result 
is  a  definition  of  the  Eeal  Machine,  adequate  to  the  prob- 
lems of  anthropology,  but  inadequate  to  all  higher  problems. 
It  is  the  aim  of  scientific  philosophy,  however,  to  include 
in  its  concept  ample  recognition  of  both  of  the  equally  essen- 
tial elements,  causal  and  teleological,  and,  by  scrupulously 
adapting  it  to  all  known  forms  of  the  Eeal  Machine,  to 
render  the  concept  itself  adequate  to  whatever  problems 
actual  human  experience  may  present.  Hence  we  may 
accept  the  following  as  a  partial  and  provisional  philosoph- 
ical definition :  — 

A  Eeal  Machine  is  a  material  Whole  of  collocated  mate- 
rial Parts,  constriicted  by  an  Organism  as  a  Causal  Means 
to  some  definite  Organic  End  of  its  ow7i,  and  so  constituted 
throughout  as  to  effect  this  End  by  either  transferring  or 
transforming  Motion. 

§45.  This  concept  of  the  Machine,  as  is  self-evident, 
contains  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  physical  and  the 
anthropological  concepts,  but  is  more  comprehensive  than 
either.  It  recognizes  fully  the  physical  or  causal  element, 
and  thereby  completely  includes  the  Abstract  Machine  of 
physics ;  it  recognizes  fully  the  teleological  element,  and 
thereby  converts  the  Abstract  Machine  of  physics  into  tile 
Eeal  Machine  of  anthropology ;  it  universalizes  the  Eeal 
Machine  of  anthropology  so  as  to  relate  it  to  tlie  whole 
organic  kingdom,  shows  that  the  concepts  of  the  Machine 
and  of  the  Organism  are  universally,  necessarily,  and  insep- 
arably connected,  and  thereby  raises  both  concepts  to  the 
level  of  scientific  philosophy.    • 


The  Philosopluj  of  Free  Religion.  53 

But  still  something  is  wanting  to  a  complete  comprehension 
of  the  Real  Machine.  What  is  the  nature  of  this  universal, 
necessary,  and  inseparable  connection  between  the  Machine 
and  the  Organism  ?  Pressing  onward  to  find  an  answer  to 
this  question,  we  are  led  to  a  discovery  of  supreme  impor- 
tance :  namely,  that  the  constitiitions  of  the  Machine  and  of 
the  Orr/anism  involve  each  the  other,  and  therefore  are  intel- 
ligible each  through  the  other  alone. 

§  46.  In  the  light  of  this  principle,  the  Real  Machine 
appears  in  a  strikingly  new  aspect.  When  it  is  said  in 
common  speech,  "The  man  cuts  the  grass,"  "The  man 
shoots  the  bird,"  or  "  The  man  writes  the  letter,"  the  ex- 
pression is  not  literally  true ;  for  it  is  the  scythe  that  cuts, 
the  gun  that  shoots,  the  pen  that  writes.  But  there  is  a 
profound  truth  in  the  common  phrases.  For  the  man  and 
the  scythe,  the  man  and  the  gun,  the  man  and  the  pen,  con- 
stitute together,  in  each  case,  a  larger  organic  whole ;  and 
it  is  really  this  larger  organic  whole,  this  Self-Extended 
Organism,  which  does  the  act.  The  scythe,  the  gun,  and 
the  pen  are,  in  truth,  only  so  many  artificial  prolongations 
and  special  modifications  of  the  hand ;  and  by  these,  as 
causal  means,  the  man  himself  is  enabled  to  perform  acts 
otherwise  impossible.  That  is  to  say,  the  scythe,  the  gun, 
or  the  pen, —  in  general,  the  Real  Machine, —  is  only  an 
Artificial  and  Separable  Organ  for  Self-Extension 
OF  THE  Organism.  When  not  used,  it  is  only  a  function- 
less  lump  of  matter ;  when  used,  it  derives  from  the  Organ- 
ism a  transient  and  artificial  life  as  a  temporary  Organ ;  its 
only  life  lies  in  its  use,  and  lasts  only  so  long  as  it  is  used. 

§  47.  Still  more  striking,  in  the  light  of  the  same  prin- 
ciple, is  the  new  aspect  in  which  the  Organism  itself  appears. 
Every  single  organ  in  the  Organism  appears  in  a  new  aspect 
as  itself  a  Natural  Machine,  since  it  invariably  functions 
as  a  causal  means  between  the  entire  Organism  and  somo 
definite  Organic  End.     But,  instead  of  originating  in  any 


54  The  Thilosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

constructive  process  of  which  the  Organism  as  a  whole  is 
conscious,  the  single  organ  originates  in  that  unconscious 
process  of  self-evolution  by  which  the  Organism  as  a  whole 
comes  into  being  through  the  inwardly  constructive  forces 
of  Nature.  Hence  the  Organism  itself,  as  a  unitary  com- 
plex of  organs  which  mediates  causally  between  itself  and 
all  its  own  Organic  Ends,  necessarily  appears  in  a  new  aspect 
as,  in  truth,  a  Self-Making  and  Self-Working  Natural 
Machine. 

§  48.  Thus  we  find  ourselves  led  irresistibly,  by  a  chain 
of  conclusive  scientific  reasoning,  to  this  complete  and  final 
philosophical  definition  of  the  Real  Machine :  — 

A  Real  Ifachine  is  a  material  Whole  of  collocated  material 
Parts,  constructed  by  an  Organism  as  a  Causal  Means  to 
some  definite  Organic  End  of  its  own,  and  so  constituted 
throughout  as  to  effect  this  End  hy  either  transferring  or 
transforming  Motion.  Every  Real  Machine  is  either  artifi- 
cial or  natural,  the  Artificial  Real  Machiiie  being  an  Ai-tifi- 
cial  Organ  of  the  Natural  Organism,  and  the  Natural  Real 
Machine  being  the  Natural  Organism  itself ;  and  every  Real 
Organism,  is  a  Self-Making  and  Self- Working  Real  Macliine. 

It  remains,  in  our  next  paper,  to  consider  what  will  be 
the  result  of  applying  the  concept  of  the  Machine,  as  suc- 
cessively elaborated  by  physics,  by  anthropology  and  by  sci- 
entific philosophy,  to  the  formation  of  a  Scientific  World- 
Conception  or  Theory  of  Being. 


The  Fhilosopluj  of  Free  Religion.  55 


YIII. 

§  49.  The  science  of  arithmetic  conceives  the  one  and 
the  many  as  mere  relations  of  quantity  in  Abstract  Number, 
and  disregards  altogether  the  Real  Things  without  which 
no  relations  of  number  can  be  real.  The  science  of  geom- 
etry conceives  the  point,  the  line,  the  surface,  and  the  solid 
as  mere  relations  of  quantity  in  Abstract  Form,  and  dis- 
regards altogether  the  Real  Substance  without  which  no 
relations  of  form  can  be  real.  In  general,  the  sciences  of  pure 
mathematics  form  no  concepts  except  those  of  Abstract 
Quantity,  Kumber,  and  Form,  out  of  which  no  scientific 
world-conception  could  possibly  be  constructed  except  that 
of  a  purely  Abstract  Univeksb  ;  for  they  rigorously  sup- 
press or  exclude  all  concepts  of  Real  Substance  as  essentially 
non-mathematical. 

The  sciences  of  chemistry  and  physics,  however,  while 
adopting  and  using  the  mathematical  concepts  of  Abstract 
Quantity,  Number,  and  Form,  introduce  new  concepts  of 
their  own  in  those  of  Real  Matter  as  Mass  or  Molecule,  Real 
Motion,  and  Real  Force  or  Energy.  Chemistry  deals  with 
the  molecular  motions  and  forces  of  matter,  physics  with  its 
molar  motions  and  forces ;  both  sciences,  however,  agree  in 
rejecting  from  their  concepts  all  recognition  of  the  relation 
of  End  and  Means,  and  including  in  them  recognition  of  the 
relation  of  physical  Cause  and  Effect  alone.  Hence  the 
physical  or  chemico-physical  concept  of  Real  Substance  is 
that  of  the  Abstract  Machine  alone,  not  of  the  Real  Ma- 
chine in  its  wholeness  at  all  (see  §§  40-48). 

These  skeleton  concepts  of  mathematics,  mechanics,  phys- 
ics, and  chemistry  are  perfectly  true  as  far  as  they  go,  and 
no  one  can  think  mathematically  or  physically  except  by 


56  The  Thilosopliy  of  Free  Religion. 

taking  and  using  them  as  they  are.  Not  the  slightest  doubt 
or  slur  is  here  meant  to  be  cast  upon  the  right  to  employ 
strictly  mathematical  concepts  alone  in  mathematics,  or 
strictly  physical  concepts  alone  in  physics  ;  the  progress  of 
science  would  be  rendered  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  with- 
out that  division  of  labor  which  can  be  effected  only  by  the 
legitimate  use  of  abstractions.  But  no  possible  use  of  ab- 
stractions which  separate  what  is  really  inseparable  can  lead 
to  a  scientific  theory  of  Eeal  Being  as  a  whole.  When  it 
comes  to  that,  scientific  concepts  drawn  from  reality  in  all 
the  fulness  and  integrity  of  actual  human  experience  can 
alone  avail  to  frame  a  really  scientific  world-conception,  a 
truly  philosophic  Idea  of  Nature ;  and  philosophy,  or  uni- 
versal science,  is  just  as  much  entitled,  nay,  just  as  much 
necessitated  as  any  special  science  to  frame  concepts  of  its 
own,  provided  that  in  framing  them  it  scrupulously  follows 
the  scientific  method. 

§  50.  Now  the  physical  concept  of  the  Abstract  Machine, 
like  the  mathematical  concept  of  Abstract  Quantity,  can,  if 
applied  to  the  formation  of  a  world-theory,  yield  only  the 
concept  of  an  Abstract  Universe  ;  it  can  never  yield  more 
than  certain  elements,  fragmentary  and  few,  of  the  concept 
of  the  Eeal  Universe.  Eefusing  as  it  does  all  considera- 
tion of  the  relation  of  End  and  Means,  and  recognizing 
only  the  relation  of  Cause  and  Effect,  the  science  of  physics 
has  no  principle  save  the  principle  of  causality  upon  which 
it  can  claim  to  ground  a  cosmical  theory.  It  must  conceive 
all  events  whatever  as  exclusively  physical  events,  as  noth- 
ing but  motions  in  masses  of  matter ;  and  it  must  explain 
all  sequence  in  these  motions  as  governed  exclusively  by 
physical  causation.  No  other  concept  than  this  of  a  purely 
Abstract  Universe,  in  which  nothing  can  ever  manifest  itself 
except  the  monotonous  reign  of  iron  physical  necessity,  can 
possibly  be  extracted  from  the  Abstract  Machine  of  i)hysics. 
But  let  us  see  whether  this  abortive  concept  of  universal 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  57 

physical  necessity  alone  can  maintain  itself  under  a  close 
and  keen  scrutiny. 

§  51.  If,  for  instance,  all  the  motions  of  matter  which 
occur  throughout  Space  at  any  given  instant  of  Time  coiild 
be  comprehended  as  one  infinitely  complex  motion,  pure 
physics  would  conceive  this  one  complex  motion  as  the  phys- 
ical resultant  or  effect  of  a  similar  complex  motion  in  the 
instant  next  preceding ;  and  all  motions  in  the  history  of 
the  cosmos  would  thus  be  reduced  to  a  single  concatenated 
series  reaching  back  into  a  limitless  past, —  an  infinite  re- 
gress in  which  each  term  would  be  at  once  an  effect  to  its 
antecedent  and  a  cause  to  its  consequent.  In  this  case 
(which  is  simply  an  attempt  to  conceive  the  Abstract  Ma- 
chine as  the  Abstract  Universe),  what  rational  notion  could 
be  formed  of  the  causal  nexus  itself,  as  uniting  antecedent 
and  consequent  ?  The  Abstract  Machine  is  abstracted  from 
the  Real  Machine,  tacitly  even  by  physics  ;  but  an  Abstract 
Universe  would  necessarily  be  in  itself  all  in  all,  and  there 
could  be,  therefore,  no  Real  Universe,  more  inclusive  than 
itself,  from  which  to  abstract  it.  If  physical  causality,  then, 
were  the  sole  real  principle  of  the  universe,  what  must  be 
the  nature  of  the  causal  relation  itself  ? 

§  52.  M.  Deschanel  (Elementary  Treatise  on  Natural  Phi- 
loso2)hy,  Everett's  revised  sixth  edition,  New  York,  1883) 
defines  Force  as  follows  :  "  Force  may  be  defined  as  that 
which  tends  to  produce  motion  in  a  body  at  rest,  or  to  pro- 
duce change  of  motion  in  a  body  which  is  moving.  .  .  We 
obtain  the  idea  of  force  through  our  oivn  conscious  exercise 
of  muscular  force,  and  we  can  approximately  estimate  the 
amount  of  a  force  (if  not  too  great  or  too  small)  by  the 
effort  %ohich  toe  have  to  make  to  resist  it ;  as  when  we  try 
the  weight  of  a  body  by  lifting  it." 

M.  Naville  (Modern  Physics,  Downton's  translation,  Edin- 
burgh, 1884,  p.  35)  similarly  says  :  "  The  idea  of  force  has 
its  origin  in  the  action  which  we  exert  upon  our  organs,  and 


58  The  Thilosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

by  our  organs  upon  foreign  bodies.  If  we  take  aivay 
\_abstract'\  the  sense  of  an  initial  and  free  poiver,  there  re- 
mains the  idea  of  a  simple  motive  power.  This  power, 
separated  [abstracted^  from  its  immediate  consciousness,  is 
no  longer  conceivable  than  in  the  manifestation  of  its  effects ; 
and  therefore  force,  as  it  is  considered  in  physics,  has  no 
other  determination  possible  than  the  motion  which  it 
produces.".  .  .  "  The  doctrine  of  the  inertia  of  matter  is  the 
centre  of  all  the  conceptions  of  modern  physics.  .  .  Inertia 
excludes  from  matter  all  power  of  its  own,  other  than  that 
which  relates  to  the  occupation  of  place  and  to  motion ;  it 
therefore  reduces  the  conception  of  bodies  to  mechanical 
elements  "  (Ibid.  p.  42).  Countless  passages  of  like  tenor 
might  be  cited.     The  italics  in  these  passages  are  oiirs. 

Conscious  Effokt,  then,  is  the  only  experiential  origin 
and  ground  of  our  concept  or  rational  notion  of  Force  in 
Nature,  as  efficient  cause,  effectuating  energy,  or  dynamical 
antecedent  of  the  consequent  "  effect " — the  ex  faction, "  that 
which  is  out-made  (from  within  the  cause  itself)."  Now 
this  something  within  the  "efficient"  or  "out-making" 
cause  which  is*  "  out-made  "  in  the  "  effect "  is,  in  every  case 
of  conscious  effort,  a  preconceived  end.  We  are  utterly 
incapable  of  making  any  conscious  effort  except  in  order  to 
do  something,  to  accomplish  some  preconceived  end ;  we, 
as  conscious  causes  or  forces  in  Nature,  necessarily  n7iit6 
in  ourselves  both  preconceived  end  and  executive  energy,  as 
the  absolutely  essential  elements  of  every  effort ;  and  we 
know  nothing  of  our  own  executive  energy  except  as  we 
exercise  it  in  putting  forth  or  executing  the  preconceived 
end.  In  all  effort,  the  two  elements  of  end  and  energy  are 
indissolubly  united.  So  far  as  it  can  be  understood  through 
conscious  effort,  therefore.  Force  in  Nature  is  the  executive 
energy  which  puts  forth  some  preconceived  end  into  out- 
ward fact :  THE  Eeal  Cause  Out-Makes  the  Preconceived 
End  in  the  Eeal  Effect,  and  the  Real  Effect  is  the 


The   'Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  59 

Out-Made  Preconceived  End  of  the  Eeal  Cause.  Hence 
the  two  concepts  of  Efficient  Causality  and  Finality 
are  inextricably  interlinked  and  united  in  that  of  Eeal 
Conscious  Effort,  as  two  inseparable  elements  of  one 
rational  notion  ;  and,  since  the  concept  of  Motive  Force,  or 
Dynamic  Cause,  is  confessedly  derived,  even  in  physics, 
from  Real  Conscious  Effort  alone,  as  its  only  origin  and 
ground  in  human  experience,  it  cannot  he  formed  at  all  as 
a  rational  notion,  if  either  of  these  inseparable  elenients  is 
arbitrarily  suj^^iressed. 

§  53.  From  these  results  it  follows  that  the  concept  of 
an  Abstract  Universe  founded  upon  that  of  the  Abstract 
Machine  is,  if  taken  absolutely,  not  only  irrational,  but 
impossible ;  for  it  destroys  itself.  As  we  have  just  seen. 
Causality  and  Finality  are  intelligible  only  through  each 
other,  and  neither  by  itself  alone  is  intelligible  at  all ;  hence 
an  infinite  regress  of  causes  and  effects  from  which  all  rela- 
tion of  ends  and  means  should  be  rigorously  excluded  would 
be  rigorously  unthinkable,  because  empty  and  nonsensical. 
Looked  at  externally,  such  a  series  would  show  no  causal 
nexus  whatever,  no  principle  of  rational  connection  among 
the  terms ;  nothing  would  be  observable  but  mere  sequence 
or  time-succession.  It  is  only  when  looked  at  from  within 
that  a  principle  of  rational  connection  and  unity  is  discov- 
erable in  the  indissoluble  Pinion  of  caiisaUty  and  finality. 
In  the  case  of  an  infinite  regress  of  causes  and  effects  with 
no  ends  and  means,  the  only  possible  experiential  concept 
of  Motive  Force,  Kinetic  Energy,  or  Dynamical  Cause 
would  be  irretrievably  broken  up,  and  would  therefore 
disappear ;  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect  would  itself 
vanish  together  with  that  of  end  and  means ;  nothing  would 
be  left  but  the  relation  of  antecedent  and  consequent  — 
mere  sequence  or  time-succession.  All  communication  of 
motion  from  body  to  body  would,  as  Descartes  discovered, 
become  essentially  incomprehensible.     In  trying  to  isolate 


60  The  PhilosopliTf  of  Free  Religion. 

the  Principle  of  Motion  as  Cause  and  Effect  without  End 
and  Means,  physics  would  extinguish  Causality  by  suppres- 
sing Finality  and  Efficiency  at  once ;  its  own  principle  of  the 
Abstract  Cause  would  slip  through  its  fingers  altogether, 
and  it  would  retain  nothing  but  the  principle  of  Succession 
IN  Time.  Hence  the  Abstract  Universe  of  physics  wov;ld 
lose  all  principle  of  rational  unity  whatever,  and  crumble 
away  into  the  impalpable  dust  of  an  infinitude  of  Atoms, 
whose  motions  would  manifest  no  other  coherence  than 
that  of  a  mere  irrational  Time-Seeies. 

§  54.  A  sufficient  proof  of  this  conclusion  is  the  con- 
firmation of  it  given  by  the  history  of  human  thought ;  for, 
whenever  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  conceive  the  course 
of  Nature  causally,  but  not  teleologically,  the  inevitable 
result  has  been,  as  in  the  case  of  Descartes,  Hume,  Comte, 
John  Stuart  Mill,  and  countless  others,  to  deny  efficient 
causality  altogether,  and  to  resolve  the  causal  nexus  into 
the  relation  of  mere  invariable  antecedence  and  consequence. 
But  the  result  of  this  perfectly  logical  procedure  is  a  denial 
of  all  real  unity  in  Nature  :  the  infinite  series  of  motions 
in  matter  becomes  a  mere  time-series,  without  any  rational 
or  comprehensible  connection  among  the  terms,  and  Nature 
itself  breaks  up  into  a  chaos  of  atoms,  an  infinitude  of 
material  units,  moving  externally  according  to  no  discov- 
erable or  intelligible  law.  This  is  the  suicide  of  all  cosmical 
science,  including  physics  itself.  The  One  is  lost  irrecov- 
erably in  the  infinitely  Many  ;  and  the  only  possible  Theory 
of  Being  which  remains  is  that  of  chaotic  and  irrational 
Pluralism. 

§  55.  In  fine,  physics  alone  can  never  become  philosophy. 
The  Abstract  Machine  (the  Keal  Machine  from  which  it  is 
abstracted  being  tacitly  recognized  in  the  background, 
though  not  directly  employed,  by  physics  itself)  is  a  legit- 
imate scientific  concept,  indispensable  in  purely  physical 
problems.     But  the  concept  of  an  Abstract  Universe  as  an 


The  Pliilosopliy  of  Free  Religion.  61 

Absolute  Unit,  with  no  recognition  whatever  of  a  Real 
U7iiverse  from  wldch  to  abstract  {t,^a,n  Abstract  Universe 
with  no  unifying  principle  but  that  of  an  Abstract  Cause, 
which,  being  just  as  emjitij  of  causal  efficiency  as  it  is  of 
causal  finality,  excludes  all  real  communication  of  motion, — 
this  concept  is  at  once  a  scientific  absurdity  and  a  phi- 
losophical monstrosity,  and  cannot  possibly  maintain  itself 
in  reason.  Since  a  mere  time-series  is  in  no  sense  a  causal 
conception,  the  causal  nexus  must  be  conceived  as  including 
End  and  jNIeans,  or  it  cannot  be  conceived  at  all.  We  repeat, 
physics  alone  can  never  become  philosophy  ;  for  to  start 
with  the  Abstract  Machine,  and  to  proceed  with  no  other 
principle  than  the  principle  of  the  Abstract  Cause,  is  to  end 
with  an  Abstract  Universe  in  Absolute  Pluralism  as  the 
Theory  of  Being.  But  Absolute  Pluralism  is  overt  repudia- 
tion of  that  absolute  unity  in  m,ultiplicity  which  is  the 
essential  aim  of  all  philosophy. 

§  56.  What  Theory  of  Being,  then,  can  be  logically  and 
philosophically  developed  out  of  the  Real  Machine  of 
anthropology  ?  Briefly,  nothing  but  Absolute  Dualism. 
If  anthropology  aspires  to  become  philosophy,  it  can  climb 
no  higher  than  Theological  Anthkopomokphism. 

Human  art  cannot  originate  the  materials  it  works  with, 
but  finds  them  originally  given  in  external  Nature.  The 
man  is  here,  the  machine  is  there  ;  even  when  in  active  use, 
the  machine  acquires  no  higher  spatial  unity  with  the  }nan 
than  that  of  mere  collocation  or  juxtaposition.  For  all  that 
anthropology  alone  can  see,  the  two  are  absolutely  two,  not 
one  ;  it  is  only  from  the  loftier  standpoint  of  scientific  phi- 
losophy that  a  profound  underlying  oneness  of  the  two 
comes  to  light  (see  §§  46-48).  To  anthropology,  the  ma- 
chine and  its  maker  or  user  are  fundamentally  and  uncon- 
ditionally two,  external  to  each  other ;  and  the  anthropo- 
logical concept  of  the  Real  Machine  is,  therefore,  an  essen- 
tially dvialistic  one. 


G2  The  Philosopliy  of  Free  Religion. 

Now  this  human  dualism  of  Machine  and  Maker,  if 
applied  to  the  formation  of  a  world-theory,  can  lead  only  to 
dualism  on  a  larger  scale  —  to  the  irredeemably  anthropo- 
morphic conception  of  God  and  the  Universe  as  essentially 
external  to  each  other  and  fundamentally  independent  of 
each  other.  For  instance,  Descartes,  the  great  Dualist 
founder  of  so-called  modern  philosophy,  ''beholds  the  entire 
universe  as  a  single  immense  machine,  whose  wheels  and 
springs  were  arranged  at  the  beginning,  in  the  simplest 
manner,  by  an  Eternal  Hand "  (M.  Thomas,  Eloge  de  Des- 
cartes, crowned  by  the  French  Academy  in  17G5,  and  pre- 
fixed to  Cousin's  (Envi'es  de  Descartes,  I.  34).  It  avails 
nothing  to  introduce  the  principle  of  "fiat  creation,"  or 
absolute  origination  of  a  universe  out  of  nothing  by  a  mere 
command ;  for  this  principle  violates  every  law  of  Being 
and  of  Thought  alike,  reconciles  no  discord,  possesses  no 
element  of  intelligibility,  and  is  absolutely  valueless  in 
philosophy.  The  introduction  of  it  into  philosophy  (for 
instance,  in  the  "  natural  theology  "  of  Butler,  Baley,  and 
so  many  others)  has  only  availed  to  discredit  the  principle 
of  teleology  itself,  and  to  postpone  the  development  of  a 
truly  scientific  conception  of  teleology  in  jSTature. 

The  anthropological  concept  of  the  Real  Machine  is 
perfectly  valid  in  anthropology  itself ;  but,  Avhen  it  is 
applied  to  philosophy  and  developed  into  the  cosmological 
doctrine  of  Absolute  Dualism,  its  fundamental  limitations 
and  defects  are  brought  to  light  in  its  failure  to  fulfil  the 
essential  philosophical  ideal  —  to  discover  the  principle  of 
absolute  nnitij  hi  multipllcitij.  Dualism  is  only  I'luralism 
written  small  —  Pluralism  reduced  to  its  lowest  terms; 
what  tells  against  the  latter  tells  also,  though  in  a  less 
degree,  against  the  former.  Philosophy  cannot  attain  its 
goal  in  anthropology  ;  anthropology  alone,  like  physics 
alone,  can  never  become  philosophy. 

§  57.    Now,  precisely  as  the  Abstract  Machine  of  physics 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  63 

can  become  nothing  but  Absolute  Pluralism  in  philosophy, 
and  ?is  the  Real  Machine  of  anthropology  can  become  noth- 
ing but  Absolute  Dualism  in  philosophy,  so  the  Eeal 
Machine  of  scientific  philosophy  can  become  nothing  but 
Absolute  Monism, 

That  the  real  universe  is  in  some  sense  one,  is  beyond 
dispute ;  the  absolute  unity  of  the  universe,  or,  as  it  is  more 
usually  and  more  loosely  phrased,  the  "uniformity  and 
universality  of  natural  laws,"  is  the  necessary  presupposi- 
tion of  all  scientific  investigation.  Further,  that  this  one 
real  universe  is  in  some  sense  a  machine,  has  long  been  a 
scientific  truism.  But  in  what  sense  ?  Is  it  an  Artificial 
Machine  or  a  Natural  Machine  ?  Anthropological  Dual- 
ism, applying  too  literally  the  analogies  of  human  art,  con- 
ceives it  as  an  Artificial  Machine,  and  explains  it  as  the 
"handiwork,"  not  of  a  natural,  but  of  a  supernatural 
"  Maker,"  a  "  Great  Artificer."  But-  scientific  philosophy 
has  shown  (see  §§  43-48)  that  every  Artificial  Machine  is 
really  an  Artificial  and  Separable  Organ  of  a  N^atural 
Organism  ;  and  it  is  self-evident  that  there  can  be  no  Nat- 
ural Organism  outside  of  Nature  itself.  Hence  the  universe 
cannot  be  an  Artificial  Machine  at  all :  it  can  only  be  a 
Natural  Machine.  But  the  only  known  Natural  Machine 
is  the  Self-Making  and  Self -Working  Machine  —  that 
is,  the  Real  Organism.  Consequently,  if  the  Universe  is  a 
Real  Machine  at  all  (and  all  science  proves  that  it  is  so), 
there  is  no  logical  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  it  is  at 
the  same  time  a  Real  Organism. 

§  58.  The  case  thus  far  may  be  briefly  summed  up  as 
follows  :  Nature,  or  the  Universe,  being  by  scientific  proof 
and  unanimous  confession  a  Real  Machine  in  some  sense, 
the  only  logical  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  it  is  the 
artificial  handiwork  of  a  supernatural  and  anthropomorphic 
Artificer,  separate  from  Nature  in  space  and  disparate 
from  Nature  in  kind  or  essence,  lies  in  the  counter-conclu- 


64  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

sion  that  it  is  the  natural  result  of  its  own  self-evolving, 
self -directing,  and  self-sustaining  Immanent  Enekgy.  There 
are  but  three  alternatives:  (1)  the  Chaotic  Abstract 
Universe  of  physics  and  Absolute  Pluralism ;  (2)  the 
Artificial  Eeal  Universe  of  anthropology  and  Absolute 
Dualism  ;  and  (3)  the  Natural  Real  Universe  of  scien- 
tific philosophy  and  Absolute  Monism.  Out  of  these  three 
alternatives  (the  only  possible  ones  from  the  standpoint  of 
scientific  realism),  the  third  alone  is  congruous  with  all 
human  experience,  and  alone  exhibits  the  legitimate  devel- 
opment of  the  principle  of  Cosmical  Evolution.  The 
very  concept  of  "  evolution "  is  essentially  organic ;  it  is 
derived  from  the  organism  alone,  applies  to  the  organism 
alone,  and  is  utterly  meaningless,  unless  the  Infinite 
Universe  is  scientifically  Known  as  a  Eeal  Organism- 
in-Itself.  The  self -contradictory  conjunction  of  Evolution 
and  Agnosticism  in  the  so-called  "  philosophy  "  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  is  a  mere  freak  of  the  hour ;  for  in  Agnos- 
ticism there  is  neither  acute  reasoning  nor  intrinsic  reason- 
ableness —  nothing  but  exploded  metaphysics,  melancholy 
misunderstanding,  crippling  prejudice,  confusion  of  thought, 
or  blank  unthinkingness.  The  philosophy  of  the  future, 
founded  upon  the  scientific  method,  must  be  organic  through 
and  through,  and  build  upon  the  known  organic  constitution 
of  the  noumenal  universe  as  the  assured  result  of  science 
itself. 

It  remains  to  show  that,  precisely  as  the  Universe  cannot 
be  a  Eeal  Machine  without  being  at  the  same  time  a  Eeal 
Organism,  so  it  cannot  be  a  Eeal  Organism  without  being 
at  the  same  time  a  Eeal  Person.  This  will  be  the  subject 
of  the  following  and  concluding  paper. 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  65 


IX. 

§  59.  Until  the  foregoing  reasoning  has  been  refuted 
root  and  branch,  it  may  without  presumption  be  taken  as 
rationally  established  that  the  Infinite  Universe  is  at  once 
a  Real  Machine  and  a  Real  Organism.  It  remains  to  show 
that  THE  Infinite  Universe  is  at  once  a  Real  Machine, 
A  Real  Organism,  and  a  Real  Person. 

§  60.  These  three  categorical  types  of  Real  Being,  or 
three  primordial  kinds  which  naturally  and  necessarily 
reveal  the  Supreme  Kind  of  Kinds  (see  §§  31-33),  are  not 
related  to  each  other  as  co-ordinate  and  mutually  exclusive 
species,  but  rather  as  successively  rising  grades  of  com- 
plexity in  immanent  relational  constitution  —  a  conception 
perfectly  familiar  in  natural  science,  as  illustrated,  for  ex- 
ample, in  Agassiz'  Methods  of  Study  in  Natural  History 
(16th  ed.  p.  91)  :  "  This  gradation  in  [embryological]  growth 
corresponds  to  the  gradation  of  rank  in  adult  animals,  as 
established  upon  comparative  complexity  of  structure."  In 
the  order  of  terrestrial  evolution,  the  Machine  first  appeared 
as  mere  matter  in  motion,  then  the  Organism  as  plants  and 
animals,  and  lastly  the  Person  as  man ;  and  this  order  of 
succession  in  time  corresponds  with  the  gradation  of  rank 
in  complexity  of  constitution  and  with  the  serial  evolution 
of  forms  in  the  scale  of  being.  There  is  no  arbitrary  or 
complete  transition  :  the  Organism  remains  still  a  Machine, 
and  the  Person  remains  still  both  Machine  and  Organism. 

§  61.  In  the  constitution  of  the  Person,  therefore,  as 
we  know  it  in  ourselves,  we  find  the  constitutions  of  the 
lower  grades  or  types  included  and  united  in  a  thoroughly 
harmonious  working  system.     The   distinctive  feature   of 


GG  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Helir/ion. 

the  Machine  is  the  mechanical  principle  of  Causality,  as 
governing  the  propagation  of  motion  through  a  material 
whole  of  collocated  material  parts,  external  one  to  another ; 
the  distinctive  feature  of  the  Organism  is  the  principle  of 
Finality,  as  governing  the  motion  and  application  of  organ 
to  function  in  a  constant  mediation  between  the  Organism 
and  its  organic  ends ;  the  distinctive  feature  of  the  Person 
is  the  principle  of  conscious  self-determination  or  self- 
conscious  Morality,  as  governing  the  free  formation  of 
ends  and  means  in  relation  to  other  selves,  and  reflexively 
judging  both  these  ends  and  their  execution  through  motion 
in  relation  to  universal  rights  and  duties  in  a  state  of  soci- 
ety. These  three  distinctive  features  of  the  Machine,  the 
Organism,  and  the  Person  are  indissolubly  united  in  every 
human  Person  as  such ;  the  three  principles  of  Causality, 
Finality,  and  Morality  are  all  rooted  and  regnant  in  the 
personal  constitution,  never  interfering  or  colliding  with 
each  other  in  their  respective  spheres  of  operation,  but  har- 
monizing perfectly  in  all  personal  life.  If  these  three 
principles  thus  harmonize  perfectly  in  the  constitution  and 
life  of  Man,  why  may  they  not,  mutatis  mutandis,  harmon- 
ize perfectly  in  the  constitution  and  life  of  Nature?  If 
Nature  is  already  known  to  possess  the  mechanical  and  the 
organic  constitutions,  why  may  it  not  possess  the  personal 
constitution  as  well  ?  Nay,  if  the  Thing  and  the  Kind 
naturally  and  necessarily  reveal  each  other's  essential  con- 
stitution (see  §§  31-33),  and  if  the  Machine  and  the  Organ- 
ism, as  Things,  are  already  proved  to  reveal  the  essential 
constitution  of  Nature,  as  their  Highest  Kind,  why  is  there 
not  a  rational  necessity  that  the  Person,  also,  as  a  higher 
Thing,  shall  still  more  reveal  it  ?  Why  is  it  not  self- 
evident  that  Nature,  as  Eternal  Archetype,  necessarily 
reveals  itself  in  the  Machine,  the  Organism,  and  the  Per- 
son, as  its  primordial  Ectypes  in  Space  and  Time  ?  Why 
is  it  not  self-evident  that  the  Person,  which  sums  up  the 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  67 

three  in  one,  is  the  Ectype  of  Ecttpes, —  in  a  word,  that 
Human  Nature  is  the  Supreme  Revelation  of  God  ? 

§  62.  These  are,  at  the  very  least,  reasonable  questions ; 
and  they  deserve  a  very  reasonable  and  respectful  answer. 
Incredible,  and  even  unintelligible,  as  it  may  seem  at  first 
sight  that  this  boundless  system  of  Nature,  this  illimitable 
Universe  of  Real  Being,  should  be  essentially  and  at  bottom 
One  Infinite  Person,  reflection  speedily  dissipates  the 
swarm  of  hasty  misapprehensions.  Images  start  up  of 
particular  machines,  organisms,  persons ;  the  disparity 
between  these  and  Nature  as  a  whole  is  overwhelmingly 
obvious.  Then  comes  rational  meditation,  gradually  sift- 
ing out  the  essential  from  the  non-essential ;  and  the  under- 
lying identity  of  constitution,  the  natural  revelation  of 
the  Kind  in  the  Thing,  begins  at  last  to  force  itself  into 
rational  recognition  with  irresistible  power.  To  conceive 
the  Universe  as  a  Machine  is  not  to  imagine  it  under  the 
form  of  an  enormous  steam-engine,  but  rather  to  compre- 
hend that  the  omnipresent  causal  energy  of  Nature,  pro- 
ducing all  motions  of  matter,  whether  of  masses  or  of 
molecules,  as  dynamical  effects,  works  invariably  under  the 
law  of  Mechanical  Causality.  To  conceive  the  Universe  as 
an  Organism  is  not  to  picture  it  as  a  gigantic  animal,  but 
rather  to  comprehend  that  the  omnipresent  causal-organic 
energy  of  Nature,  directing  all  motions  of  matter,  as  causal 
means,  to  the  realization  of  Nature's  eternal  end  of  Evolu- 
tion, works  invariably  under  the  law  of  Organic  Final- 
ity. So,  too,  to  conceive  the  Universe  as  a  Person  is  not 
to  portray  it  as  a  colossal  man,  but  rather  to  comprehend 
that  the  omnipresent  causal-organic-personal  energy  of  Nat- 
ure, being  conscious  of  itself  and  its  own  eternal  end  of 
Self-Evolution  through  Self-Involution,  and  execut- 
ing this  end  through  the  successive  and  gradual  creation  of 
Finite  Machines,  Finite  Organisms,  and  Finite  Selves 
within  its   own  Infinite  Self,  works  invariably  under 


68  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

the  law  of  Ideal  Morality.  It  is  impracticable  here  to 
unfold  these  thoughts  in  full ;  they  are  now  barely  hinted 
at,  in  order  to  clear  the  way  for  a  thoughtful  and  unpreju- 
diced consideration  of  the  thesis  that  the  Universe  is,  and 
must  be,  a  Real  Person. 

§  63.  The  Finite  Artificial  Machine,  or  artificial  organ 
constructed  by  a  natural  organism,  is  external  in  space  both 
to  the  constructor,  or  user,  and  to  the  effect  which  it  is 
constructed  to  produce ;  it  mediates  between  the  two  as  a 
causal  means  outside  of  both,  as,  for  instance,  the  chisel 
between  the  sculptor  and  the  statue,  or  the  printing-press 
between  the  printer  and  the  book,  or  the  army  between  the 
conqueror  and  his  conquest.  It  is  owing  to  this  constitu- 
tional externality  in  space  that  physics  can  so  easily  conceive 
the  Abstract  Machine  —  can  so  easily,  in  abstract  thought, 
make  a  pseudo-separation  between  the  two  elements  of 
cause  and  effect,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  end  and  means, 
on  the  other;  for  both  the  preconceived  end  in  the  mind  of 
the  maker  and  the  realized  end  in  the  material  world  are 
equally  external  to  the  Machine  as  a  mediator  between  the 
two,  and  what  separates  them,  yet  links  them  together,  is 
the  mediating  chain  of  physical  causes  and  effects  in  the 
motions  of  the  Machine  itself.  Hence  physics  can  readily 
disregard  both  preconceived  and  realized  ends,  and  confine 
itself  exclusively  to  mere  motion  and  its  laws ;  and  hence, 
too,  the  legitimacy  and  utility  of  the  Abstract  Machine  as 
a  physical  concept,  which  serves  to  simplify,  and  thereby 
helps  to  solve,  purely  mechanical  problems. 

But,  in  the  case  of  the  Universe  as  an  Infinite  Natural 
Machine,  no  such  externality  in  space  obtains,  and  no  such 
abstraction  of  the  causal  from  the  final  relation  is  possible 
at  all,  unless  the  Abstract  Universe  is  recognized  as  neces- 
sarily implying  the  Real  Universe  from  which  to  abstract 
it.  The  Real  Universe,  as  a  Real  Natural  Machine,  must 
be  absolutely  all-inclusive ;  both  causal  and  final  relations, 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  69 

inseparable  in  the  complete  constitution  of  every  Eeal 
Machine,  must  be  strictly  and  wholly  within  the  all-inclu- 
sive Universe ;  there  can  be  here  neither  external  maker 
nor  external  effect  —  both  maker  and  effect  must  be  inter- 
nal only.  In  other  words,  if  the  Infinite  Universe  is  a 
Real  Machine  at  all,  it  must  be,  not  merely  a  Real  Machine, 
but  also  a  Self-Making  and  Self-Working  Real  Machine  — 
that  is,  a  Real  Organism :  the  Infinite  Universe  cannot 
BE  A  Real  Machine  without  being  a  Real  Organism, 
TOO.  If  the  principles  and  premises  of  scientific  realism 
are  sound,  the  argument  here  is  more  than  probable  —  it  is 
demonstrative. 

§  64.  Now  precisely  as  stringent  a  rational  necessity 
inheres  in  the  next  step  of  the  argument :  namely,  that  the 
Infinite  Universe  cannot  be  a  Real  Organism  without  being 
a  Real  Person,  too. 

The  Finite  Natural  Organism,  or  Real  Machine  con- 
structed by  Nature,  is  both  Cause  and  Effect  of  Itself  and 
End  and  Means  to  Itself:  it  is  the  Self-Making  and  Self- 
Working  3Iachine  {%  H).  This  is  no  new  conception;  it 
was  foreshadowed  in  Aristotle's  well-known  doctrine  of  the 
soul  as  an  "entelecheia,"  and  fully  developed  in  Kant's 
profound  analysis  of  the  Organism  as  a  "  Naturzweck "  — 
a  natural  whole  in  which  whole  and  parts  are  reciprocally 
Cause  and  Effect,  End  and  Means  (Kritik  der  Urtheilskraft, 
§§  65,  Q>Q>).  But  Kant  overlooked  another  essential  charac- 
teristic of  the  Organism  which  is  even  more  jDrofoundly 
significant  and  instructive.  He  failed  to  analyze  its  Total 
Organic  End  as  two-fold :  (1)  as  Indwelling  or  Immanent 
End,  and  (2)  as  Outgoing  ok  Exient  End.  The  Imma- 
nent End  of  the  Organism  is  Self-Evolution,  partly  rec- 
ognized in  the  common  proverb  that  "  self-preservation  is 
the  first  law  of  Nature  "  :  this  Kant  saw.  But  the  Exient 
End  is  Self-Devotion  —  devotion  of  self  to  the  preserva- 
tion and  evolution  of  the  higher  self  or  species,  to  which 


70  The  Philoso2')hy  of  Free  Religion. 

the  individual  Organism  is  related  as  the  organ  or  organic 
cell  is  related  to  the  Organism  itself :  this  Kant  did  not  see. 
Nevertheless,  this  principle  of  the  Exient  End  (clearly 
illustrated  in  the  reproductive  system)  unites  the  individ- 
ual Organism  to  its  kind  as  a  larger  and  inclusive  Organ- 
ism, unites  this  in  turn,  as  a  new  individual,  to  a  higher 
kind,  and  so  on  indefinitely.  Thus  the  Exient  End  appears 
as  a  teleological  principle  of  unity  and  intelligibility 
throughout  the  whole  of  Nature.  The  Immanent  End 
gives  to  the  Organism  no  "  Others,"  but  merely  its  "  Self  "  ; 
the  Exient  End  gives  to  it  "  External  Others,"  or  a  higher 
self  in  a  Not-Self,  as  a  separate,  bvit  normally  necessary, 
complement  to  its  own  being.  These  two  eq\ially  essential 
elements  of  the  Total  Organic  End  are  equally  wrought 
into  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  the  organic  constitution 
itself. 

But,  in  the  case  of  the  Universe  as  the  Infinite  Natural 
Organism,  the  Total  Organic  End  ceases  to  be  dualistically 
separable  as  literally  Immanent  and  Exient,  inasmuch  as 
the  Infinite  can  have  no  "  External  Others."  The  principle 
of  Immanency  and  Exiency,  notwithstanding,  remains  in 
the  strictly  monistic  distinction  between  Self  as  One  Whole 
(principle  of  Self-Evolution)  and  Self  as  Many  Parts  or 
Internal  Others  (principle  of  Self-Devotion) ;  just  as  the 
Finite  Natural  Organism  exists  as  One  Organism  of  Many 
Organs  or  Cells,  in  which  each  alike,  organism  and  cell, 
not  only  lives  its  own  true  life  unsubverted  and  unin- 
fringed by  that  of  the  other,  but  also  devotes  its  own  real 
life  to  that  of  the  other.  Hence,  in  the  Infinite,  Self  and 
Not-Self  are  numerically  identical.  But  Numerical  Iden- 
tity of  Self  and  Not-Self,  Subject  and  Object,  constitutes 
the  Unity  of  Self-Consciousness  in  the  Person.  Con- 
sequently, THE  Infinite  Universe  cannot  be  a  Eeal 
Organism  without  being  a  Real  Person,  too. 

Thus  we  are  led  to  discover  the  Law  of  the  Correla- 


The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion.  71 

TiON  AND  Ultimate  Identity  of  all  Keal  Types  in  the 
Person. 

§  G5.  The  same  momentous  conclusion,  forced  upon  us 
above  by  studying  the  constitutions  of  the  Machine  and 
the  Organism  as  concrete  realities,  is  no  less  forced  upon  us 
by  studying  the  laws  of  Causality  and  Finality  as  their 
real  principles. 

The  idea  of  all  Force  or  Might  in  Nature  being  confes- 
sedly derived,  even  in  physics,  from  human  experience  of 
Conscious  Effort,  these  inevitable  consequences  follow  from 
§§51-55:  — 

I.  The  Efficient  or  Out-Making  Cause  necessarily 
contains  within  itself  the  Preconceived  End  ;  the  Effect 
OR  Out-Made  Result  necessarily  contains  within  itself  the 
Realized  End  ;  and  the  Causal  Bond  is  itself  the  Ener- 
getic Realizing  End  in  Effort. 

II.  Therefore,  the  principle  of  Efficient  or  Mechani- 
cal Causality  necessarily  contains  within  itself  the  prin- 
ciple of  Organic  Finality. 

Similarly,  the  idea  of  all  Right  in  Nature  being  derived 
from  human  experience  of  Conscience,  these  inevitable 
consequences  follow  from  §  64  :  — 

I.  The  Immanent  Organic  End  is  Self-Evolution,  or 
Ethical  Egoism  ;  the  Exient  Organic  End  is  Self-Devo- 
tion, or  Ethical  Altruism  ;  and  the  Total  Organic  End 
is  Harmony  of  Ethical  Egoism  and  Ethical  Altruism 
IN  Character. 

II.  The  lower  Finite  Organism  realizes  its  Character,  of 
which  Nature  is  conscious,  in  Ethical  Unconsciousness  ; 
the  higher  Finite  Organism  realizes  its  Character  in  Ethi- 
cal Consciousness  of  Limited  Freedom;  the  Infinite 
Organism  of  Nature  realizes  its  Character  in  Ethical 
Consciousness  of  Illimitable  Freedom. 

III.  Therefore,  the  principle  of  Organic  Finality  neces- 


72  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Relirjion. 

sarily  contains  within    itself    the   principle   of   Freedom, 
Self-Determination,  ok  Ideal  Morality. 

§  66.  This  magnificent  result,  that  Caiisalitij  involves 
Finality  and  Finality  involves  Morality, —  in  other  words, 
that  the  three  supreme  and  constitutive  principles  of  the 
Eeal  Universe  are  at  bottom  one,  from  the  heliocentric 
point  of  view,  in  the  one  principle  of  Absolute  Person- 
ality,—  is  analogous  to  the  vast  modern  generalizations  (1) 
that  all  forms  of  Matter  are  at  bottom  one  in  Identity  of 
Substance,  (2)  that  all  manifestations  of  Force  are  at  bot- 
tom one  in  Identity  of  Energy,  and  (3)  that  all  stages  of 
cosmical  change  are  at  bottom  one  in  Identity  of  Evolu- 
tionary Process.  To  these  it  adds  (1)  that  all  immanent 
relational  constitutions,  whether  of  machine,  organism,  or 
person,  are  at  bottom  one,  in  the  personal  constitution,  in 
Identity  of  Essence,  and  (2)  that  all  natural  laws  are  at 
bottom  one  in  Identity  of  Principle.  It  therefore  con- 
stitutes the  crowning  discovery  of  the  Scientific  Method, 
necessary  to  complete  the  demonstration  of  Absolute  Mon- 
ism, in  the  Law  of  the  Correlation  and  Ultimate 
Identity  op  All  Eeal  Principles  in  Personality. 
Who  could  overestimate  the  value  or  importance  of  such  a 
result  ?  The  ultimately  inevitable  scientific  identification 
of  all  physical,  biological,  and  psychological  forces,  as  uni- 
versally correlated  and  mutually  convertible  forms  of  one 
eternal  and  omnipresent  Force,  means,  in  the  light  of  this 
transcendently  sublime  law,  not  the  degradation  of  all 
forces  to  the  level  of  blind  mechanical  necessity,  but  the 
elevation  of  all  forces  to  the  height  of  intelligent  spiritual 
freedom.  This  is  the  natural  and  unforced  evolution  of 
Science  itself,  through  the  philosophized  Scientific  Method, 
into  the  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

§  67.  In  this  way  it  is  made  clear,  to  any  one  who  has 
capacity  to  comprehend  and  patience  to  master  the  argu- 
ment, that  the  Infinite  Universe  cannot  be  a  Real  Machine 


The  Philosoxtliy  of  Free  Religion.  73 

without  being  a  Real  Organism,  and  cannot  be  a  Real  Or- 
ganism without  being  a  Real  Person ;  and  that  this  philo- 
sophical last  conclusion  is  just  as  certain  as  the  scientific 
first  premise  that  the  Universe  is  indeed  a  Machine.  This, 
then,  in  briefest  form,  is  the  Scientific  World-Concep- 
tion, as  Absolute  Monism  or  Scientific  Theism  :  — 

Mechanical  Causality,  ot  the  Law  of  Motion^  Organic 
Finality,  ot  the  Law  of  Life,  and  Ideal  Morality,  or  the 
Law  of  Holiness,  Justice,  and  Love, —  the  three  eternal  and 
all-pervasive  Real  Principles  by  which  the  whole  known 
Universe  exists, —  are  at  bottom  One  in  the  Real  Principle 
of  Omnipresent  Self- Conscious  Energy  or  Absolute  Per- 
sonality, and  constitute  the  Unity  of  the  Universe  in 
THE  Essential  Being  and  Life  of  God,  as  at  once  Infi- 
nite Machine,  Infinite  Organism,  and  Infinite  Per- 
son. 

§  68.  Whatever  higher  truth  lies  unrevealed  in  the 
boundless  mystery  of  the  Unknown,  this  Truth  of  the 
Known  stands  fast  as  the  eternal  foundation  of  the  Real 
Universe.  If  any  one  should  contemn  the  idea  of  the  All- 
Person,  thus  conceived,  how  meanly,  alas,  must  he  think 
of  moral  personality  itself — how  blindly  must  he  despise 
the  dignity,  the  majesty,  the  sublimity  of  his  own  nature 
as  Man  ! 

§  69.  Real  Personality,  finite  and  relative  in  Man, 
infinite  and  absolute  in  Nature,  is  thus  the  last  word  of 
Science  and  Philosophy  —  the  first  word  of  Ethics  and 
Religion  ;  for  Man's  moral  nature  is  necessarily  rooted  and 
included  in  his  personal  nature,  and  his  personal  nature  is 
necessarily  rooted  and  included  in  that  of  the  All  which 
it  dimly,  yet  supremely,  reveals.  There  is  no  other  central 
unifying  principle,  whether  in  thought  or  in  action,  whether 
in  the  life  of  the  individual  or  in  the  life  of  society,  by 
which  the  Real  may  be  known  or  the  Ideal  may  be  embodied. 
There  is  no  other  central  unifying  principle  by  which  Man 


74  The  Philosophy  of  Free  Religion. 

may  develop  or  reform  either  himself  or  society,  or  by 
which  the  all-diviuizing  Enthusiasm  of  Humanity  may  be 
kindled  in  his  soul,  or  by  which  the  world  may  be  redeemed 
from  its  mountain-load  of  injustice,  suffering,  and  sin. 
Think  highly,  think  reverently,  think  devotedly,  0  brother- 
men,  of  that  Moral  Ideal  which  is  the  very  core,  law, 
and  life  of  your  own  personality,  and  which  could  be  to 
you  no  law  of  august,  all-commanding  obligation,  of  trans- 
cendent and  eternal  authority,  were  it  not  identical  with 
the  innermost  Law  of  Nature  by  which  the  planets  roll, 
the  sun  shines,  the  Universe  itself  exists.  For  that  divine 
passion  for  the  Finite  Ideal  which  makes  the  hero,  the 
reformer,  the  prophet,  the  saint,  is  but  a  spark  of  that 
eternal  and  ethereal  fire  which  burns  at  the  very  heart  of 
Being,  and  keeps  God  himself  true  to  his  own  Infinite 
Ideal. 

§  70.  That  thus  the  ultimate  ground  of  all  Art,  Science, 
Philosophy,  Ethics,  and  Religion,  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  Scientific  Method,  is  proved  to  lie  in  the  immanent 
relational  constitution  of  the  Supreme  Genus-in-Itself,  or 
Real  Universe,  as  Absolute  Divine  Person,  —  that  this 
innermost  nature  of  the  known  Cosmos  as  All-Person  is 
most  profoundly  revealed  in  the  distinctively  personal, 
ethical,  or  spiritual  nature  of  Man, —  that  "Man's  Place  in 
Nature"  is  that  of  a  free  and  loyal  Servant  of  the 
Divine  Ideal,  and  that  all  his  duties,  hopes,  joys,  loves, 
aspirations,  activities,  destinies,  depend  upon  his  discover- 
ing intelligently  and  fulfilling  freely  the  exact  function  in 
Nature  and  in  Human  Society  which  this  unalterable 
Divine  relationship  assigns  to  him, — these  things  will 
explain  themselves  to  the  quick-Avitted,  and  cannot  be  am- 
plified or  emphasized  now. 

§  71.  The  time  has  come  to  close  this  series  of  papers, 
which  is  merely  a  partial  prospectus  of  what  may  be  hoped 
to  find  hereafter  a  more  appropriate  place  and  a  far  better 


The  Philoso'phy  of  Free  Religion.  75 

form.  Its  aim  has  been  to  show  the  way  o^^t  of  Agnosti- 
cism into  the  sunlight  of  the  predestined  Philosophy  of 
Science.  The  labor  of  writing  these  too  closely  packed 
articles  will  be  well  repaid,  if  here  and  there  some  thought- 
ful spirit  has  caught  even  a  glimpse  of  the  sublime  vistas 
of  truth  waiting  to  be  revealed  to  mankind  by  the  philo- 
sophic use  of  the  Scientific  Method.  Said  Kalph  Waldo 
Emerson,  America's  greatest  prophet :  "  There  is  a  state- 
ment of  religion  possible  which  makes  all  skepticism  ab- 
surd." Is  there  not  such  a  statement  lying  latent  and  im- 
plicit in  the  Philosophy  or  Free  Religion  ? 


PRESS   NOTICES 


OF 


SCIENTIFIC    THEISM. 


The  work  is,  we  think,  an  important  addition  to  the  literature  of  the 
subject.  It  treats  of  Theism  from  a  new  point  of  view,  and  by  means  of 
original  methods.  The  treatise  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  original.  .  .  .  lu 
its  polemic  against  Phenomenism  and  its  assertion  of  Realism,  it  opens 
up  a  discussion  of  the  utmost  importance.  ...  It  is  evident  that,  in  this 
argument,  Dr.  Abbot  is  right,  and  the  idealists  and  sensists  wrong.  .  .  . 
A  book  as  full  of  thought  as  this  furnishes  innumerable  topics  for  inquiry 
and  criticism.  If  every  position  taken  by  Dr.  Abbot  cannot  be  main- 
tained, his  book  remains  an  original  contribution  to  philosophy  of  a  high 
order  and  of  great  value.  —  Dr.  James  Freeman  Clarke,  in  the  Unitarian 
Review. 

Tins  is  a  notable  book.  It  is  notable  both  for  wliat  it  is  and  for  what 
it  indicates,  namely,  returning  health  and  sanity  in  pliilosophic  tliought. 
.  .  .  Wliatever  one  may  tliink  of  tlie  position  in  wiiicli  tlie  argument  of 
"Scientific  Theism"  culminates,  one  cannot  but  be  impressed  with  the 
deep  insight,  the  clear  intellect,  the  moral  fervor  of  the  author.  Who- 
ever has  the  interests  of  philosophy  at  heart  will  welcome  tliis  masterly 
attempt  to  effect  a  reconciliation  between  philosopliy  and  modern  science. 
No  thorough-going  idealist,  to  be  sure,  will  be  satisfied  with  a  book  which 
so  powerfully  assails  his  fundamental. positions.  .  .  .  We  cannot  but  be 
thankful  for  this  strong  and  well-reasoned  protest  against  the  agnosticism 
so  current  in  our  times.  —  Prof.  H.  A.  P.  Torrey,  in  the  Andover  Review. 

The  phrase  "  Scientific  Theism  "  expresses  in  itself  a  subject  of  great 
interest.  We  do  not  so  much  wisli  to  write  a  careful  review  of  Dr. 
Abbot's  very  vigorous  work  as  to  discuss  in  connection  with  it  the  topic 
brought  forward  by  it.  This  discussion  will  be  guided  by  the  view  pre- 
sented by  Dr.  Abbot.  The  strong  assertion  of  Realism  with  which  the 
book  opens  we  heartily  accept,  with  this  slight  exception,  tliat  the 
author  seems  to  us  to  lay  undue  emphasis  on  the  unfortunate  effects  of 


78  Press  Notices  of  Scientific  Theism. 

Nominalism  in  preparing  tlie  way  for  Idealism.  .  .  .  These  quotations 
are  perhaps  sufficient  to  give  the  central  idea  of  Dr.  Abbot,  the  one  we 
wish  to  consider,  —  that  tlie  universe  is  an  organism  animate  in  every 
part  with  the  inbiding  Divine  Presence.  It  is  very  plain  that  this  con- 
ception furnishes  to  the  mind  of  the  author — it  may  also  to  many  other 
minds  — a  very  quickening  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  world,  bringing 
his  thoughts  and  feelings  in  close  contact  with  God.  Every  portion  of 
the  book  makes  this  very  j)la.'m.  —  Ex- President  John  Bascom,  in  the  New 
Englander  and  Yale  Review. 

In  thus  calling  attention  to  the  Noniinalistic  current  in  jihilosophical 
thought,  and  tracing  it  from  its  source  to  its  latest  issues,  Mr.  Abbut  lias 
done  a  real  service.  The  justice  of  his  complaint  must  also  be  allowed, 
that  the  significance  of  the  Noniinalistic  principle  has  not  hitherto  been 
appreciated  by  the  historians  of  philosophy.  Further,  his  detection  of  a 
Nominalistic  vein  in  Kant  is  just  and  important.  .  .  .  This  vindication 
of  the  objective  standpoint  of  science  and  this  account  of  tlie  real  nature 
of  the  distinction  between  the  noumenon  and  phenomenon  are  excellent. 
The  principle  of  "  Relationism,"  if  properly  understood,  is  undeniably 
true,  and  must  supersede  all  merely  "subjective"  principles.  —  Pjo/". 
James  Seth,  in  Mind. 

Ces  ouvrages  de  quatre  pliilosophes  contemporains,  dont  deux,  ou 
peutetre  trois,  appartiennent  a  I'Ame'rique,  et  un  a  la  Russie,  repre'sentent 
de  remarquables  efforts  de  construction  nie'taphysique  et  morale  dus  a 
des  penseurs  inde'pendants  et  profonds  qui  ont  re9u  diversement  I'influ- 
ence  des  doctrines  en  conflit  a  notre  e'poque :  positivisme,  mate'rialisme, 
ide'alisme,  pessimisme,  e'volutionisme,  et  se  sont  fait  des  croyances  philo- 
sophiques  en  dehors  de  toute  e'cole.  .  .  .  Le  systeme  de  M.  Abbot  est 
une  espece  du  genre  positivisme,  en  ce  qu'il  prend  dans  la  science  les 
fondements  de  la  philosophic  ;  niais  cette  espece  differe  des  autres,  ou  des 
plus  connues,  par  le  caractere  affirmatif  de  ses  conclusions  sur  des  points 
de  metaphysique  an  sujet  desquels  le  positivisme,  a  son  debut,  professait 
I'ignorance  invincible  et  pre'tendait  observer  la  neutralite'  en  refusant 
d'examiner. —  HI.  Renouvier,  in  La  Critique  Philosophique. 

Un  penseur  americain  tres  distingu^,  M.  Francis  EUingwood  Abbot, 
a  combattu  avec  une  grande  force,  dans  un  ouvrage  re'cent,  la  the'orie  de 
ITnconnaissable,  et  esquisse  une  sorte  de  religion  scientifique  qui  nous 
parait  un  heureux  amendement  a  celle  de  M.  Spencer.  L'exposc'  som- 
niaire  de  sa  doctrine  servira  de  complement  assez  naturel  a  celui  du 
pre'cedent  systeme.  ...  La  pensee  de  M.  Abbot  m'a  paru  assez  j)rofonde 
et  assez  originale  pour  me'riter  d'etre  reproduite  littcralement.  Le 
Theisme  Scientifique  est,  depuis  les  stoiciens,  la  plus  bardie  tentative  pour 
fairs  de  I'univers   un   Dieu  revOtu  de  justice,  de  bonte,  de  nioralite'. 


Press  Notices  of  Scientific  Theism.  79 

M.  Abbot  va  meme  plus  loin  que  le  stoicisme :  il  fait  de  I'univers  une 
personne.  Ce  qui  donne  a  son  systeme  un  interet  et  une  importance 
exceptionnels,  c'est,  nous  Tavons  dit,  qu'il  se  presente  conime  une  appli- 
cation rigoureuse  de  la  methode  qui  a  conduit  la  science  h,  de  si  mer- 
veilleux  resultats.  —  M.  Ludovic  Carrau,  in  La  Philosophie  Religieuse  en 
Anrjleterre  (Paris:  Felix  Alcan.     ISSS). 

Mr.  Abbot  has  presented  us  with  a  brilliant  and  enticing  argument,  and 
many  who,  after  a  careful  reading  and  study  of  his  book,  still  feel  them- 
selves compelled  to  hesitate  and  wait,  will  admit  its  strong  persuasiveness 
and  charm  ;  wliile  others  will  doubtless  be  induced  through  its  means  to 
abandon  at  once  their  old  agnostic  doubts.  —  Chicago  Unicersitij. 

These  lofty  and  valuable  conclusions  he  obtains  by  a  process  of 
reasoning  which  is  in  the  main  sound,  and  founded  upon  sound  premises. 
Tlie  book,  as  we  have  said,  must  take  an  honorable  place  in  the  literature 
of  the  subject.  — Boston  Literary  IVorld. 

Dr.  r.  E.  Abbot's  new  book,  the  "  Science  of  Theism,"  confirms  the 
opinion  of  the  few  best  able  to  judge  that  he  is  tlie  ablest  philosopliical 
thinker  in  America,  and  that  his  work  seems  to  be  the  foundation  of  that 
deeper  religion  of  the  future,  sure  to  come,  which  will  satisfy  both  the 
head  and  the  heart  of  man.  — Boston  Sunday  Herald,  editorial. 

This  work,  by  one  of  the  first  living  minds,  is  a  profound  attempt  to 
place  theism  on  tlie  immovable  ground  of  modern  science.  —  Montreal 

Star. 

Although  offered  as  but  a  sketch  of  the  most  prominent  features  of 
the  "  riiilosophy  of  Science,"  Dr.  Abbot's  exposition  in  his  Part  I.  is  so 
comprehensive,  so  critical  and  scholarly,  and  so  suggestive,  that  he  may 
find,  as  Darwin  did  when  he  brought  out  the  "  Origin  of  Species  "  as 
preliminary  to  a  great  work,  that  he  has  done  enough  already  to  found 
a  scliool  of  investigation  and  to  establish  himself  as  the  master  of  a  new 
departure,  profoundly  original  and  significant,  in  the  highest  form  of 
research.  —  Boston  Transcript. 

Since  the  immortal  treatises  of  Darwin  himself,  which  have  been  so 
grievously  misunderstood,  we  have  not  had  a  treatise  which  meets  so  well 
the  demands  of  all  science  nnd  all  religion  as  does  Dr.  Abbot's  "  Thei?m." 
lie  does  explicitly  and  positively  what  Darwin  did  by  implication.  The 
great  Darwin  gave  us  the  right  method  of  studying  visible  Nature ;  Dr. 
Abbot  extends  the  tlieory  and  method  to  the  universe,  to  the  human 
mind,  to  God.  Sucli  a  book  should  make  an  epoch  in  the  intellectual 
history  of  our  country.  The  book  is  a  very  great  performance.  — Boston 
Beacon. 


80  Press  Notices  of  Scientific  Theism. 

Dr.  Abbot  ha8  come  forward  witli  a  discussion  of  tlie  problem  that 
is  destined  to  make  an  epoch  in  the  world  of  thought, —  a  discussion 
which,  as  the  result  of  twenty-five  years  of  consecutive  thinking,  is 
marked  by  such  masterly  grasp  of  the  whole  issue,  and  such  clearness 
of  analysis  and  reconstructive  power  in  dealing  with  it,  that  no  thought- 
ful man  or  woman  can  afford  to  pass  it  by.  .  .  .  Only  once  in  a  great 
wiiile  does  a  work  of  such  moment  appear.  .  .  .  For  many  years  now 
powerful  intellects  have  turned  away  from  the  realms  of  theology,  once 
liaunted  by  such  minds  as  those  of  Dante,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  Pascal ; 
but  of  tiie  fact  tiiat  in  this  little  book  there  are  laid  the  foundations  of 
what  may  again  dower  the  barren  and  prosaic  world  with  sublime  the- 
ologies, the  work  of  grand  and  sanely  imaginative  intellects,  there  can 
be  little  question.  — /iey.  Francis  Tiffanij,  in  the  Boston  Herald. 

It  bears  evidence  throughout  of  wide  reading  and  close  thinking: 
every  page  throbs  with  brain-force.  ...  He  has  a  fervent  faith  that 
right  thinking  is  necessary  to  right  feeling  and  right  action  ;  and  that 
religion,  in  order  to  be  redeemed  from  the  effeminate  sentimentalisra 
and  empty  ceremony  into  which  it  has  in  modern  times  so  largely  fallen, 
must  come  again  under  the  sway,  as  in  previous  epochs  of  the  world, 
of  a  robust  system  of  thought.  This  necessary  system  of  thought,  he 
believes,  is  furnished  by  science  and  the  scientific  method ;  and  to  prove 
this  position  is,  in  general,  the  theme  and  motive  of  his  book.  .  .  .  What- 
ever might  be  said  on  some  of  the  special  points  of  Mr.  Abbot's  argu- 
ment, his  book  starts  from  the  riglit  ground,  and  proceeds  by  the  right 
method,  and  reaches  essentially  the  right  end.  It  is  a  masterful  treat- 
ment of  its  high  theme,  and  can  but  have  great  weight  toward  the 
establishing  of  the  religious  philosophy  that  is  to  come  as  the  product 
of  science,  —  of  science  in  its  large  sense,  as  applied  to  the  whole  uni- 
verse of  matter  and  mind.  ...  It  hns  science  at  its  back,  and,  with  that 
support,  its  leading  ideas  will,  we  believe,  eventually  win  the  battle.  .  .  . 
The  larger  book,  of  which  the  preface  to  this  hints,  we  earnestly  hope 
may  yet  come.  But,  even  if  it  does  not,  this  one  just  as  it  is,  notwith- 
standing these  minor  defects,  deserves  not  only  a  kind,  but  a  proud, 
welcome  from  all  lovers  of  high  and  free  thinking  on  great  themes.  — 
TieiK  William  J.  Potter,  in  the  Boston  Index. 

There  could  hardly  be  a  greater  opposition  than  that  of  such  a  scheme 
as  this  to  such  a  scheme  as  that  which  is  furnished  by  Mr.  Frederic 
Harrison,  when  he  says :  "  For  all  that  we  know  to  the  contrary,  man  is 
the  creator  of  the  order  and  harmony  of  the  universe,  for  he  has  imagined 
it."  Spencer,  who  disagrees  with  Harrison  so  much  concerning  the 
nature  of  religion,  agrees  with  him  perfectly  in  this,  and  they  both 
agree  with  Kant.     Dr.  Abbot's  theory  is  therefore  a  new  departure  of 


Press  Notices  of  Scientific  Theism.  81 

commanding  interest  and  importance.  ...  At  a  time  wlien  "  Retreat 
upon  Kant "  is  so  generally  the  philosophic  order  for  the  day,  it  is 
certainly  invigorating  and  refreshing  to  hear  this  voice  of  manly  oppo- 
sition ;  and  it  does  not  seem  to  me  by  any  means  impossible  that  we 
have  seen  with  our  eyes  a  man  from  whom  will  date  anotiier  epoch  in 
pliilosopliy,  bright  with  such  faith  and  hope  as  have  not  been  upon  the 
earth  since  Parker  gave  to  Kant's  abstractions  the  positive  warmth  and 
color  of  his  individual  genius  for  religion.  —  Rev.  J.  W.  Chadwick,  in  the 
BrooMi/n  Union. 

No  one  need  resort  to  mere  compliments  in  expressing  very  great  ad- 
miration of  the  argument  here  set  forth,  if  not  entire  assent.  Tiie  few 
who  knOw  Dr.  Abbot  as  a  speculative  tliinker  expect,  when  they  open 
this  book,  more  than  they  could  justly  expect  from  any  other  American 
philosopher.  They  look  for  the  evidence  of  thorough  training  in  the 
"  discipline  "  of  philosophy,  and  of  a  wide  and  deep  knowledge  of  the 
masters  of  thought,  which  have  yet  not  been  able  to  overburden  or 
destroy  a  natural  metaphysical  ability  of  the  purest  strain.  They  look 
for  clearness  and  exactness  of  expression,  the  virtues  commonly  deemed 
most  alien  to  metaphysics.  They  look  for  a  vigorous  exposure  of  the 
idols  of  the  hour,  and,  above  all,  for  the  most  substantial  constructive 
work.  Tiiese  things  are  all  found  here,  and  we  trust  tliat  the  few  will 
become  a  multitude.  Dr.  Abbot  has  the  one  quality  which  should  com- 
mand the  attention,  at  least,  of  the  many  :  he  is  an  intense  believer.  He 
has  faith  in  natural  science,  which,  indeed,  is  in  no  lack  of  devotees  to- 
day ;  and  he  has  as  much  faith  in  religion,  which  has  now  no  super- 
abundance of  real  friends ;  and  his  two  faiths  are  thorougidy  one.  .  .  . 
Realistic  evolution  will  inevitably  triumph  over  all  other  theories.  But 
there  are  two  forms  of  it,  the  mechanical  and  the  organic ;  and  in  the 
establishment  of  the  profounder,  the  organic,  view  Dr.  Abbot  puts  forth 
all  his  strength  in  what  must  be  considered  the  most  satisfactory  chapter 
of  the  book.  His  analysis  of  the  idea  of  machinery,  and  his  exposure  of 
its  glaring  insufBciency  to  account  for  tlie  life  and  growth  of  the  uni- 
verse, are  extremely  cogent.  .  .  .  We  cannot  deny  the  necessary  revolu- 
tion in  philosophy  which  Scientific  Realism,  as  here  stated,  should  effect. 
We  hope  it  will  soon  come,  and  that  Dr.  Abbot  will  receive  for  this  book, 
and  larger  books  hereafter,  the  just  meed  of  his  very  high  deserts  as  a 
philosopher.  ..."  Scientific  Theism  "  is  one  of  the  great  books  of  our 
generation. —  Rev.  N.  P.  Gitman,  in  the  Christian  Register. 

Dr.  Abbot  has  confined  his  essay  to  two  hundred  and  twenty  pages, 
which  are  crammed  with  strong,  vigorous  thought.  .  .  ,  This  book  clears 
away  much  confusion  and  error,  and  it  seems  to  us  the  most  valuable 


82  Press  Notices  of  Scientific  Theism. 

contribution  to  the  philosopliy  of  religion  yet  made.  ...  Dr.  Abbot  has 
done  a  grand  work,  which  must  have  an  important  effect  on  the  religious 
tiiought  of  the  present  century.  —  Omaha  Republican. 

In  his  rejection  of  agnosticism,  Mr.  Abbot  is  the  strongest  antagonist 
Herbert  Spencer  has  yet  met  with,  and  he  is  quite  competent  to  enter 
into  combat  witii  a  thinker  so  able.  .  .  .  His  book  is  one  of  the  ablest 
which  has  recently  appeared  in  behalf  of  science.  It  is  well  calculated 
to  work  a  new  revolution  in  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  to  work  out 
the  philosophy  based  upon  it  in  a  deeper  and  surer  manner  than  ever 
before.  It  must  attract  attention  everywhere  for  its  close  reasoning 
and  for  its  breadth  of  piiilosophic  grasp  on  the  problems  involved.  The 
author  manifests  a  power  of  philosopliic  insight  wiiich  has  been  denied 
to  such  men  as  Herbert  Spencer.  —  A'ef.  George  W.  Cooke,  in  the  New 
York  Daij  Star. 

It  is  a  strongly  characterized  and  scholarly  piece  of  work,  doing  lionor 
to  American  thought;  and  it  is  much  to  be  desired  that  the  world  should 
see  the  system  developed  in  its  entirety. —P/o/  C.  L.  Peirce,  in  the  New 
York  Nation. 

We  are  not  usually  much  attracted  by  books  on  scientific  theism.  Too 
commonly  they  are  attempts  to  make  use  of  the  general  interest  in  sci- 
ence to  call  attention  to  some  not  very  original  or  profound  speculations 
about  religion.  The  result  often  is  a  syncretism  of  poor  science  and 
worse  theology.  Such  a  prejudice  cannot  attach  itself  to  any  work  from 
the  pen  of  Mr.  Abbot.  Many  of  us  remember  his  striking  article  on 
"  Space  and  Time,"  published  in  the  "North  American  Review  "  in  18G4, 
which,  as  he  tells  us,  was  partly  the  germ  of  the  present  work.  Tliat 
article  showed  such  philosophic  insight  and  originaHty,  and  sucli  a  grasp 
of  the  question,  as  to  lead  us  to  hope  for  further  discussions  of  the  same 
quality.  Our  wish  is  at  last  gratified  in  the  small  but  very  valuable 
treatise  before  us.  —  Boston  Dailij  Advertiser. 

Dr.  Abbot's  scheme  of  thought  has  a  decided  claim  to  recognition  as 
a  striking  contribution  to  current  philosopliy.  —  London  Academy. 

We  even  doubt  whether  any  humnn  being  could  come  to  real  belief  in 
God  by  this  road.  We  do  not  intend  by  this  to  suggest  that  the  work 
done  by  Mr.  Abbot  is  badly  done  or  is  unnecessary.  It  is  neither.  It  is 
well  done,  and  it  is  necessar}'  to  be  done  ;  for  it  is  ver}'  desirable  that 
the  clever  philosophical  agnostic  should  be  taken  on  his  own  ground, 
and  pushed  into  a  corner.  Any  one  who  wants  to  see  this  done  should 
read  Mr.  Abbot's  book.  —  London  Inquirer. 


Press  Notices  of  Scientific  Theism.  83 

This  one  thing  Dr.  Abbot  seems  to  us  to  have  done :  he  has  made 
Herbert  Spencer's  doctrine  of  the  "Unknowable"  antiquated.  It  lias 
passed  into  tlie  realm  of  the  obsolete  and  the  nonsensical.  .  .  .  To  us, 
then,  the  great  achievement  of  tlie  book  is  the  clear  statement  and  dem- 
onstration of  the  scientific  method  as  applied  to  the  external  world,  and 
its  application  to  the  problems  of  philosophy.  .  .  .  We  hesitate  to  say 
of  all  what  we  gladly  say  of  the  "ground  principle":  that  being  estab- 
lished, the  rest  will  come ;  and  it  will  come  the  sooner  and  the  safer 
because  this  one  man  has  patiently  wrestled  with  the  problem  for  twenty 
years,  and  is  willing  now  to  devote  the  remainder  of  his  life  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  questions  involved  in  the  hopes  of  the  human  heart. 
Such  praise,  inadequate  as  it  may  seem,  is  what  few  men  in  a  generation 
deserve.  —  Rev.  George  Batchelor,  in  the  Unitarian  Review. 


Prmcetun   Theoloqic.il   Semm.iry-Speer  Libr.iry 


1    1012  01130  5762 


Date  Due 


i\s^..  I 


=t 


rk 


